Thank you Mary Eberstadt. I have no formal education and knowledge of sociology as you do, but as a middle-aged woman who has experienced and long felt what you so beautifully articulated, I wept as I listened. I wept because I have long known that this revolution has ultimately not served my gender as it intended. I wept for all the women who have been told they are free, but most often feel confused, shameful and/or rejected. I know now that all the frustrations I felt in being a 'modern' and 'free' young woman were because my society abandoned all the traditional structures that more aptly protected and guided young women into fulfilling romantic and domestic lives. I hope we will face these realities and rethink the revolution.
In general, adults understand the relationship between freedom, rights, and responsibility. The problem is our children don't know that they are still children. It's not to do with age, it's about experience.
Being a Baby Boomer, I do miss my "American Graffiti" days. When I lost my wife of 30 years was a disaster for me (and likely for my children). I did not know "how to date". Gentleman-like behavior, courtesy, flowers, ... were no longer the norm - some women thought that I was "gay" (I am not). I grew up in a protective rural environment (Northeast farmland) where you married for life. We still had our teenage hormones raging (and subsequent fantasies) but there was something we as adolescent learned quickly about, that was respect. Like mentioned in her first example, getting a girl pregnant would usually bring the male more rejection from the community (if he did not marry his girlfriend) than the girl. Also, it was difficult not to care (emotionally and physically) for the girl one was dating when you knew her entire family, probably went to school with her brother(s)/sister(s) which created some social pressure (or behavior guideline). I must admit that years later, coming back to my community - I noticed that the natives (i.e. my peers that had stayed in the community) were for the most part still married whereas the ones who had left (military, college, urban life) had for the most part divorced at least once (according to our high school reunion). As a physician (suburban cities), I was very liberal with my prescription of birth control but as she mentioned, the rate of abortion increased (according to the nearby clinic data). This tells me that we (our culture) lost something somewhere - many of us cannot live in this "complete freedom" without getting hurt (or worse, hurting someone else). Teenagers (and adults) need some guidance, some boundaries, until the time they mature enough to develop (hopefully) their own values and principles (this first paragraph was written around 2018) Addendum Jan 2023 - I must say that I do not think that we are heading in the right direction (United States/Canada). It is painful to me to foresee what my grand-children will face as they reach adolescence. Our youth needs guidance, a direction, a lighted path towards ideals higher than self-satisfaction/gratification/promotion/... Truth, honor, courage, and commitment are virtues that require constant "honing" if not "work" but will leave us (or fellow humans) with the satisfaction of doing or having done "the right thing". And yes, it is not easy, I know as I am still "working" on it. There is still something right if not noble about helping someone else, displaying kindness, and addressing fellow humans with respect (yes, even using words such as "sir", "miss", and/or "madam/ma'am). May Peace be with you and may God help us all... Ciao, L
Hi Miss Mcphee, I am glad you appreciated my comments and I do hope that our (American) society will "normalize" for the sake of our children (grand-children in my case). May God bless you, Ciao, L
This is an excellent comment. This physician knows what he is saying. His comment is based on what is really happening. Many people refuse to see his point because they want their freedom to have their 5 minutes of fun without having to consider how it affects others and even themselves. Nobody wants to be told what to do anymore, especially in the department of morality (even talking about God is "unfashionable"). Rampant selfishness has seared their consciences. These people promise freedom but it comes at a high cost of loosing all meaning of life and a sense of purpose. No wonder depression is going up and so is suicide. Sad.
@@RobertJones-et7gh Depression and self destruct is going on plenty more in low status men. They may be considered to have "Sexual freedom" but obviously they don't have anything.
So many of us, including myself, who grew up in a home with loving parents, religion, and high standards for behavior, still fell for the lies of sexual freedom and birth control. There was nothing free about it- constantly worrying if you’re pregnant, hoping you don’t get an STD, knowing girls who sought an abortion even though we were all taught that it was wrong
Wow…I just happened across this speech purely by chance & decided to give it a listen…BRILLIANT! Thought-provoking, engaging, very well-laid-out! WELL DONE😊
As a life-long observer of things human, I can say that Ms Eberstadt has done an admirable attempt to describe the effects of the sexual revolution in the 60's till now, but it's too vast a topic to encapsulate in an hour. There are so many issues left out, and I cannot begin to fill in the gaps, but want to mention a couple of things: the influences of porn and the power of the media in shaping young (and older) mindsets. We cannot underestimate the effects of these two points enough. Having said that, something that did come to mind as I listened to her wonderful lecture is the song "Hotel California"...you can check in anytime, but you can never leave. It is exceedingly difficult to change a young (and older) mind once they have found their "freedom". It is just as near impossible to "convert" a homosexual into becoming straight. Western society's influencers know this. Their selfish intent to lead the young to a life of indulgence and pleasure is socially harmful and barely perceived by the ones being shaped.
*I don’t know what many of you commenters are talking about. She didn’t just “blame” men or women. She exposed causation on many aspects. Some of u are so simplistic in your analysis.*
Sadly that train of thought seems to be fairly dominant when looking at issues, social and beyond. People want others to be a single cause for a single effect , neglecting to look at a variety of factors and how they interact with each other. Rarely are wide scale issues going to be like for like in the solution
Fair enough. But the "revolution" is completely and wholly Women's fault. Feminism, and the Women's liberation movement too, are specifically named after the gender that caused all the damage. It took 100s of years, but the "average" Men built Civilizations the likes of which the world has never seen: Outrageously great: Food production; Medical practices; Energy; Building; Businesses; Free-trade... But it took only a handful of years for Women to undermine it all. One take away is that Women, unrestrained by common civil moral standards, have shown their true nature. Another is that those people do NOT deserve good and Honorable Men .. Marriage rates dropped from 97% to less than 1% today due to women undermining themselves as well as marriage laws. These beasts are not my problem. I can't fix them.. and I sure as shift will NOT support them or prop up this HORRID culture they built.
Except for the obvious fact that women have total control of the legal system and this has been an absolute disaster for men, especially if they marry. Marriage and children are largely zero risk for women and with the "unilateral, no fact" divorce system they put in place concurrent with the sexual revolution, it is a hopeless situation for men. Like many, I have no children because even getting the paternity test to determine if the children are your children is considered a crime in many jurisdictions. Well, as any intelligent man would do, I responded accordingly.
@@russscott6837 unfortuntely you have identified yet another poorly thoughtout and even to me a female, totally illogical 'rule of the road' not fair at all.
Thomas how can a cowardly deity that is into blood sacrifice,murder (especially children) ,is a professional at hide&seek and is invisible be good "no"religions are dangerous 😳
In the late 60's, with something gained, things were lost. Like the "one income family". I also witnessed women, whom grew up thinking their destiny was to be "mom", yet, in the 60's, had other options. My real mother put her kids up for adoption, not wanting to be a mom, and my adoptive mom, came to the same conclusion, and stuck her adopted children, with her daughter, when she went to first high school, and then college. Vietnam, and the failure of the factories to stay in the USA had a drastic effect on the male female dynamics. First creating a shortage of men in the local area. Leading to competition from the local girls, leading to some regrets after the end of Vietnam. Also, preViet-nam, there was alot of factories, but post Vietnam, the work environment changed. And became friendly towards hiring women, causing some women, whom had fought a nasty battle to pull men from their wives, to blame the men they were chasing, years later. (lol). I was a child, but I witnessed alot of weird changes in the late 60-s, whereas the drama appeared to end about 76, like it never happened.
No, the Drama didnt end .. it shifted. Feminism introduced Marxism to america, and it has been downhill ever since. The drama has spread like the Mental illness it is. Furthermore: the "revolution" is completely and wholly Women's fault. Feminism, and the Women's liberation movement too, are specifically named after the gender that caused 99% of the damage. It took 100s of years, but the "average" Men built Civilizations the likes of which the world has never seen: Outrageously great: Food production; Medical practices; Energy; Building; Businesses; Free-trade... But it took only a handful of years for Women to undermine it all. One take away is that Women, unrestrained by common civil moral standards, have shown their true nature. Another is that those people do NOT deserve good and Honorable Men .. Marriage rates dropped from 97% to less than 1% today due to women undermining themselves as well as marriage laws. These beasts are not my problem. I can't fix them.. and I sure as shift will NOT support them or prop up this HORRID culture they built.
I believe the lost Gen Z is due in large part to the quality vs quantity time debate. Adoption of Dr Spock methods of discipline has resulted in undisciplined, rebellious lost children, raised in daycare, desperate for attention and turning to extremes. Children basically spend early years attending daycare like they have to get up for a job. Women have adopted Playboy/Cosmopolitan ideals of having prostitute skills, adopted sexually immodest clothing and behavior. They have become like men were encouraged to be, sexually promiscuous . Why buy the cow when the milk is free?
Hi Norman, I feel sad for your family (of origin) experience. My parents' divorce in ~1960, brought disaster to my "innocent childish world" and rejection from the town I lived in, as if I carried the sign of their "original sin" on my forehead. My mother did put me for adoption but I had the salvation of being adopted by my grand-parents, who were farmers/ranchers in a very closely knit rural community. They provided me the "paradise lost" that I was envying watching vintage wholesome TV shows of the fifties/early sixties (Father knows best, Donna Reed Show, Mickey Mouse Club, Leave it to Beaver...) Looking back, I am not so sure about what the net balance of what our society gained/lost is/was in the end. Peace be with you, Ciao, L
Yes, options arrived, and people took them in huge numbers. Why change shitty diapers when you can work a job, make your own money, and travel where you want?
For those asking what can we do? Until women know their value, they give away their sexuality. They can’t blame men for an action that leaves them vulnerable. I’ve studied some of the indigenous practices that protects the woman. The man had to prove his ability to provide to her parents. This makes him proud of his role. He came to her family where she was protected against abuse. These were some Native American traditions. Also one good book was “Honoring Menstration” where women are more valued in rituals such as the quincenera. She develops and understands her rank. This book had many other cultural practices!
The sexual "revolution" was and is degrading and insulting to women. Hollywood pushed the idea of women, because of feminism, didn't need men to participate in child rearing. Look at us now. 60% of children do not have a father! Feminism was wholly negative for women, men and children. Still is.
Lolita by Nebakov was published in Playboy in the late 1950s. This book was written to illustrate the behavior and beliefs of sexual predators. But publishing in Playboy turned it into a playbook for child predation. The movie gave the idea that young girls were mini sex addicts ready to seduce men. Hefner has done great damage to women around the world.
Yes, for all those talking about how ''feminism'' has ruined dating and sex, I have to remind them that Hefner's responsibility free bachelor's life came first.
I will preface my comments by saying I agree with much of what she says and what I disagree with is a matter of degree, from mild disagreement in some areas to matters of semantics in others. Too trivial to mention. But I have a different take on a couple of concepts -- not outright disagreement, just a different take on some things she mentioned. Early in the video, around 5 minutes in, she talks about how most men, in the community she was describing, worked as laborers. And families "no matter how chaotic, stayed intact" So I have thoughts about both of those things. The idea that a man in most communities now, could now "take responsibility" and support a family today -- the question is "On what wages?" There aren't well paying factory jobs in great volume that way nowadays and haven't been for ages. The golden age of unionized labor is over as the factory owners outsource overseas, mine owners have stripped everything, and both enthusiastically bust unions here, all because they want record profits and don't want to pay labor enough to support thriving families. If there is a golden age past to return to, it needs some kind of economic underpinning which involves paying adults male or female enough to support families. The other thoughts are about the chaotic families staying intact -- is that really an unquestioned good? Chaotic families are stressful at their very best, lethally dangerous at their very worst. Please, everyone, be careful with this idea that intact families are themselves part of a golden past to return to.
The whole "failure to launch" is due just as much or more to economic instability than it is to the sexual revolution. Lack of steady well paying jobs for people with limited education is the primary problem. The issues of the sexual revolution are real enough, I'm not disagreeing with much of what she says, I am going to submit for consideration that these problems are the secondary cause of societal breakdown rather than the primary. Good solid economic options could make it so much more possible for moral people to make good moral choices.
Yes, those jobs have gone. Also, investment firms bought much of the real estate so that they could have a firm grasp on the price. But don't bother trying to get conservatives to do anything about that, decent paying jobs and not letting investment bankers monopolize would be socialism.
Look up the words of the song Baby It's Cold Outside. The girl has a list of reasons why she can't stay with the man, and he tries to persuade her otherwise. Contraception has removed all her reasons, she no longer has disapproving family, social restrictions - no reason not to stay late with the man. This is the result of women's new "freedom". It takes away all rationale for saying "no".
As someone who came of age during the late 1970's I experienced the dark side of the sexual revolution firsthand. By insisting that sex was this "wonderful thing" that ought to be experienced without strings attached, its proponents inadvertently created a "rape culture" which we are still trying to deal with. I believe wholeheartedly that the increase of child sexual abuse is part and parcel of the sexual revolution. A couple of years ago a woman I worked with told me that the reason she slept with guys right off the bat was not because she was sexually attracted to them but because she had learned AS A CHILD that SEX WAS SOMETHING OTHERS TOOK FROM YOU and therefore she might as well go ahead and get it over with as guys would simply take it anyway. This way she "might" at least get some enjoyment out of it. That is truly mind-boggling. Thinking back to my own experiences 45 years ago, I could not honestly say that is not true. Because it was, very much so, back in the 1970's and beyond. I was derided by my peers, both male and female, because I insisted on waiting until marriage. Consent? NO ONE talked about consent. If you were dating that meant you intended at some point to have sex with the person you were dating and the more times you went out the more this became an obligation. At the same time the abstinence movement was trying to counter this. BUT, the BIG problem with the abstinence movement is that the people leading it had ABSOLUTELY NO CONCEPTION of what dating was like in the 1970's. NONE WHATSOEVER. They were either married (and had been for quite some time) or vowed celibates (priests/nuns). They had no skin in the game. All they knew was that people, especially young women, were out having sex outside of marriage and they did not like it. They did not know the struggles those of us who bought into their message were going through. How hard it was to even find someone to go out with. The awkward and totally nonromantic conversation that had to be brought up right from the start--No, I am not going to go to bed with you. Because you see, there was no innocence anymore. You didn't just go to a movie or out to dinner or dancing and leave it at that. Oh, no. On my first date I was sexually molested by a fellow classmate during a movie we had gone to see together. There was NOTHING, NOTHING, that prepared me for this. There was nobody I could talk to, because these things did not happen to good Catholic girls, and if it did, it was because I must have led him on. Again, "date rape" was not even on the radar as far as abstinence leaders were concerned. So I totally get what my coworker was saying. Because if it was that bad in the 1970's how much worse was it now? I just wonder how many other scarred women are out there, women who lost the chance to marry because they bought in to an obsolete idea that almost no males had bought into. I know that they exist, because I've run into them online. Yet nobody talks about these victims of the sexual revolution. Quite frankly, I don't know what I would tell teenagers these days. There was one teenage girl that I was in a play with who talked about her purity ring and wanting to wait until marriage. At the time I was about 20 years older than her. I said, "Come back to me when you are 40 or 50 and we will talk about this. Because what nobody is telling you is that you are reducing your chances of marrying by insisting on waiting." My mother always said that the pendulum would eventually swing back to the old ways, but I am not so sure. There is a whole movement of men who are walking away not only from marriage but from relationships (Men Going Their Own Way, MGTOW). I can't say that I blame them. I too have chosen to go my own way. I have no desire to be part of hookup culture.
@@chamuelolivier1594 Actually, we DON'T have a prerogative. The time when women were in the drivers' seat concerning courtship and marriage is long gone. As you rightly pointed out the MGTOW are not abandoning sex. So who are they having sex with? It's fairly obvious. The woman who insists on no ring no sex may very well find herself without either because she is competing against women who offer cheap, abundant sex without any strings attached. It's a matter of supply and demand. There is no demand for partners who say no ring no sex. That is the cold hard truth. But there IS a big demand--as well as a big supply--for those who say sex without a ring is just fine. Those of us who hold onto traditional values are not calling the shots anymore. That horse has long left the barn. It's time to stop pretending otherwise.
@@theresemalmberg955 So we can see how MGTOW are hypocryts. They're just men who want sex without comitment. I feel so sorry for women who can't find a real relationship. The law of jungle prevails and it's just horrible. The sexual "liberation" has freed men, not women. It worked for me because , as a religious woman, i chose to marry a religious man.
I agree with a lot of what you’re saying here. My childhood was just like the woman you worked with. That said, I don’t think the 1960s created rape culture, it just gave predators a different set of tools. Traditional predators tell their victims, “You’re a sinner. You tempted me. You just be ashamed of yourself.” OTOH, countercultural predators say, “You wanted this. I’m just liberating you from sexual repression.” One way or the other, predators like to shift the blame.
@@catsmom129 Absolutely. However, I do think that while predators have always been around, they have not been enabled and supported to the extent that they are now.
My parents were born during the Depression; my older brother is a Baby Boomer, myself, Generation X. I never fell for the "sexual liberation" of women since I was not raised that way, moreover, a woman's love needs to be earned for a reason and it is not a societal reason, either.
To SUPER GENERALIZE in a couple of ways: 1. Solving one problem often creates another. 2. A single change can potentially bring about unanticipated and often undesirable changes. 3. When a change in a status quo is brought about, something will happen to balance it out; that something may not be good. Oh yeah, love this video. Thank you Mrs. Eberstadt.
I am learning this the hard way. My girlfriend became pregnant and I wanted to get married because. That’s what you do! She refused said we weren’t ready for that. Now we’re broke up and my child will have a broken home. I feel terrible about it. I should have listen to what I was taught
I sense terrible pain and regret in your comment. I am here to tell you the good news that God can heal you and help you make the most of a tough situation, if only you turn to Him.
Let her be a single mom and go get you a wife somewhere else. America doesn't produce wives anymore. Go overseas and find a good wife with traditional family values.
Old saying- women give sex to get married. Men get married to get sex. Marriage served different needs that dovetail to make both into a loving relationship. Now there’s lots of sex but no love. Hence the problems.
What about the following problem. There is less opportunity for men in the workplace because women take many formerly male jobs. Add this to the fact that most women won’t marry a man who makes less money than they do. ie, most women don’t want to marry a stay at home dad. No wonder there are less marriages.
My parents had five children. I never married or had children to avoid the risk of divorce, child custody and child support My sister never married or had children ---reasons unknown One brother killed at age 15 One brother married, no children One brother married and two children. So, more than a hundred years after my parents were born, the result is two people in the third generation.
A guy's money means nothing to me, besides that he isn't sitting on a couch all day. I think one reason women/girls on dating sites make money a prerequisite is because those sites are 70% male and the women get inundated with ''offers'' from men, so the women try to weed them out anyway they can.
The failure of contraception in the example she used is the result of a lack of education, access, and personal accountability. I'm from a similar small town, and the teen pregnancy rate was also high. One of the problems is that there was literally no sex ed. My high school health class essentially left it to 'don't have sex until marriage, or you could get AIDS and die.' That's not an exaggeration, and the misconceptions about pregnancy and sex were ridiculous. I'm an EMT, and even in 2018 I still have patients who believe in things like certain positions, 'pulling out', or being on your period prevent pregnancy. Again, sadly enough, that's not an exaggeration. Another problem was that even though contraception was legal access was limited at best. It's not unusual for doctors and pharmacies to not prescribe or sell certain items to people under 18, or (with certain types) to anyone at all. Others might refuse to sell them without parental approval. Even if that wasn't the case it would take a week tops for the gossip to wind through town. Women's clinics and places like Planned Parenthood were often an hour or more away, and required a vehicle and money to get there. I do agree that we have failed massively at teaching kids the personal responsibility, morality, and self respect to wait to have sex and to step up to the plate if there's a pregnancy. There have been attempts such as with purity culture movement, but that has also backfired massively. Sexual purity has been put on a pedestal far and above other virtues, and has been turned into an un-Biblical all or nothing thing. This often results in extreme guilt over thoughts and acts that can lead to starting sexual activity since they already feel they're failures and 'dirty.' The way it's taught is also disturbingly tone deaf to teens who have been raped/molested.
facetiousbadger: Sex "education"-- teaching sexual techniques to underage kids-- promotes more sexual activity, not less. And by the way, the World Health Organization has classified oral contraceptives as a Class I carcinogen, one that's been linked to breast cancer. So it's dangerous for anyone taking it, but especially for teens. And it has about a 10% failure rate-- so it actually leads to more abortions. So thanks a bunch for promoting abortion and breast cancer and abuse of women, because like it or not, that's exactly what feminism does. All in the name of "equality", of course. (Translation: me, me, me)
Your points allude to the idea that if they had just done it right, put up the PP centres in the optimal locations, taught kids how to swallow a pill or put on a condom etc. everything would have been peachy.
This is an interesting talk and like her book Primal Screams: How the Sexual Revolution Created Identity Politics may be intended as a conversation starter rather than a strong academic argument. The lack of sources and studies, as someone has already noted in the comments, makes me think this is the case. I agree with Mary that in some ways women have not really come out ahead since the 1960's but I am not convinced by Mary's argument here that the Sexual Revolution can be fingered as the only culprit for womens' unhappiness. In conjunction with the Sexual Revolution came state sponsored welfare states, a second wave of feminism and in some places, like Quebec, Canada, a secularization of government accompanied by a turning away from a state religion (Roman Catholicism). Each is a significant socio-political movement in itself. I agree with Mark Lilla when he wrote "All narratives that focus on a single cultural moment as a decisive break in history risk falling into a classic logical fallacy: post hoc ergo propter hoc, whatever follows an event is caused by that event. Pessimistic theories of historical decline almost always fall into this error." As for Mary's thesis that society has been degraded and women have not benefited I want to point out that most men have not benefited either. The 15 to 20% of men that capture the attention of most women may have "benefited" from some casual sex for a while but they have certainly had to pay the bill and much more when the #MeToo movement came along. Men like Harvey Weinstein deserved to be punished but sadly many men who were not guilty of anything other than being male were swept up in the hysteria and anger of what was now a third wave of feminism gone off the rails. Witness what Brett Kavanaugh was put through and read the comments below that point out how women now get their way in family court whether this is just or not. Mary has pointed out in books and talks how pornography has harmed men, marriages and families but I haven't heard her say anything about romance novels and the women who are addicted to this type of "porn". The biggest demographic among the purchasers of the novel 'Fifty Shades of Grey' were middle aged women. Women file for divorce more than men do. I think women need to take their share of the responsibility for the state of families today and for where we go from here.
I agree and today women are not only reading pornography they are actually directing and producing pornography. One example is the article "Meet the Powerful Women Directors Working in Porn." There was also a NETLIX documentary about this.
We as a society men, women and now children have slid so far from Biblical principles. It's heartbreaking. I looked up the movie The Jesus Revolution and its more Hollywood BS trying to talk us into the lie thay these sexual revolutions are (and have been/60's) a good thing. Justifying LGBTQ as just another day in "progressive paradise " to them. Never mind the mental health confusion and further degradation of the family. Schools too. It's sick.
We as a species for the last 60 years have been socially engineered by a very small percentage of "educated" people. Anything "educated" people say,especially young ones, i take with a VERY large dose of salt!
@@lessonstolivefor Maybe if education was more about hard facts and not about so much useless filler, people with degrees would be taken more seriously. One reason many people had a hard time getting through HS was because they couldn't stand another moment of Shakespearian statistics?
It's a modern myth that there wasn't reliable, dependable birth control before the pill. Combining rhythm & CI methods, the average prevention rate is actually better than the pill. The difference is that those two methods require cooperation, and the pill does not. The pill is a unilateral reproductive decision by one party. Was the pill a unilateral decision in favor of women that men then responded to by removing themselves from reproductive responsibility? Who knows. Legal abortion could be another factor--another process that removes men entirely from reproductive decision-making. And this is similar to the point the speaker makes. When you create a 100% laissez-faire sex marketplace, you create a few extreme winners and lots of losers in men (increasing the value of $$$ in sex market), and drive up assortative mating in adulthood marriage market, which further concentrates wealth. This does not in effect "privilege men". It privileges a very few men, and is a callback to early state sexual ethics at the beginning of history, where there are 17 times more female ancestors than male ancestors.
"Who could have seen the library of..." Pope Paul the VI did. I've just been introduced to Kipling's "Gods of the Copybook"... sure feels like he foresaw it. It was foreseeable! All it took was a rational mind, and a willingness to overlook the allure of "Hey, all the sex you could ever want!"
Sexual deviance ie sex without marriage, was one of the major factors in destroying the Roman Empire. Empires fall from within. They work hard to get to the top, but once there they get careless and lazy. Sexuality then is unleashed and the consequences of unwanted pregnancies, disease, and relational destruction are the result. The problem with America is we had not gotten to that point until the 60's. Even in the 20's when people were drinking illegally and somewhat deviant, the country did not embrace it as a majority.
There was a shift around 1900. A push to say "the Government is responsible for everything". Free stuff, couched in terms of Charity. And, not long after that, the Frankfurt School started pushing things along. But, at least, back then, the Government knew it couldn't ban something without a Constitutional Amendment. Now, they just ban things willy nilly, with a simple Federal Law or even bureaucratic fiat. But, yes, the undermining of Sexual Morality has been a key to destroying civilizations since forever.
The evidence is that in the past a class has risen to a position of political dominance because of its great energy and that at the period of its rising, its sexual regulations have always been strict. It has retained its energy and dominated the society so long as its sexual regulations have demanded both pre-nuptial and post-nuptial continence. … I know of no exceptions to these rules. -J.D. Unwin
This feels a bit cart/horse. Political dominance has also come to people who pushed open, low restriction sexuality. It is just unsustainable. Any society which is sustainable will maintain strict sexuality. While I cant cite anything specific, I bet it has been studied thoroughly and It seems to me that societies start with strong moral code. As they become successful, the moral code degrades, probably due to the successful society being able to sustain people when they fall short of the code long enough for them to gain societal power. They advocate for a lessening of the restrictions of morality. Eventually, the society collapses under the weight of its immorality.
@@vanmoody Rome was destroyed by too much government. Read ==> The Collapse of Complex Societies by Joseph Tainter - pdf . Free Online.The good stuff starts in Chapter 4.
I arrived here via Heather Mac Donald and Abigail Schirer. I would have not imagined myself interested in a listen to someone like Mary Eberstadt. I haven't pondered, but rational conclusions seem obvious.
Modern birth control came at the worst possible time since sexual mores were already changing with urbanization and weakened extended families. I think if modern birth control had been discovered in the 19th century and introduced as something to save women's lives and help the poor avoid too many children, the strong moral values of the time would not have led to the sexual revolution. Unfortunately, Congress made birth control illegal at the time when moral standards were rigorous. Introducing family planning at the height of Victorian values (i.e. condoms) would have reinforced family stability, decreased urbanization and generally been a stabilizing influence in society. Unfortunately, birth control became widely available at the worst possible time, both morally and sociologically.
The Bible does not forbid birth control. The man who was struck dead for using withdrawal had deceived his brother's widow that he was going to carry on the family line. The New Testament tells us that a man who does not support his household is worse than an infidel and has denied the faith. It also says that couples are not to deny each other sex unless they take a break from sex for a special prayer time. What does that mean? Well, couples would have to limit their family size to afford to support the children. God's command was to FILL the earth--it's full. Also, if women did not use birth control, we would see women die in childbirth and have horrendous complications from too much childbirth. Family planning is usually a good thing in marriage.
From what I can find most churches that condemn birth control do it based on "be fruitful and multiply" and the biology of people with sex designed for reproduction. However, the bible itself does not condemn those who would control reproduction and in no place except one is failure to reproduce condemned or punished. It would seem while the Bible and most other faiths encourage the propagation of the group, few condemn limitations based on ability to pay or otherwise support and care for their progeny.
If a worker is a voluntary worker at an agreed upon wage, there is no exploitation. As far as disability with age, workman's comp recognizes the employers responsibility for injury and disability on the job. Thus safe working conditions are a benefit to the employer as well as the employee. I might also mention disability with age is a natural condition of a long life as the body wears out. And that is a personal responsibility of the individual to prepare and a social responsibility of the FAMILY to care for the young and elderly. As far as care of servants, as employees would have been considered in the past. The Bible gives a responsibility for care (Leviticus 25:43}. Even in the worst times of US slavery the law required the care by the master for old slaves. They could not be legally abandoned.
her answer about secilarism and religion being just two competing faith systems is very good. but at the same time so obvious. I hate when it is presented like secularism is some sort of meta ground where other faiths have to adjust themselves.
Joseph Mantle: Why? Because the people pushing this were Marxists and social progressives. From their warm, fuzzy cultural bubble, these people NEVER foresee the terrible consequences of their utopian "solutions".
I know that is why they did it. Why is this woman saying it? I just noticed the "Post-Protestant Ethic" part of the video title. Maybe it is because she is willfully ignoring it because of the Catholic aspect.
"Conspired" is the wrong word. The fact is Protestants opposed the Catholic Church from the very beginning. But there was no grand conspiracy... they were all very open about it. Never the less, this woman is a scholar who should have been able to say "there was at least one quarter where all the effects of this were predicted." In fact, I would love if she had done research and named any other prominent persons of the day who also did so. Surely the Pope and solid Catholics couldn't have been the only people saying these things! After all, simple Reason alone would have predicted most of these effects!
I ascribe it more to Leftism, which isn't "Jewish". Many Socialists are Jews, but we can see that, in any leftist country, they are inevitably persecuted. Nothing the Marxists like more than pitting one group against another. The back to the topic at hand, everyone likes Sex, and would like to do it without limit or responsibility. So anyone who simply looks ahead and says "this is going to lead to disaster" will be squelched. None of which really explains why author Mary Eberstadt would continuously say "no one could see this coming", then mention that at least one world leader did see it coming.
Most Jews, like most everyone else, don't consider it enough to know what they are. Most Socialist countries tend to round up Jews. And most people who go about blaming "the Jews" are just as leftist when you scratch just below the surface.
In 1969, at age 19, I looked at the plague of divorce that was taking place, and which has continued unabated since then, and swore off marriage or having children. Now, at age 73, that has proven to be my best decision ever. Divorce has certainly been a disaster for children. I certainly did not want to be ground up in the divorce-child custody-child support machine as a man. So who DOES it benefit? I understand that 80% of divorce actions are filed by women these days. Does that give us a clue?
Most women filing for divorce is because of infidelity. That is the problem. If you can be a man of honor and maintain fidelity, you probably won't be divorced by a woman unless there is abuse.
Wow...I have been watching the world with the 1960's in mind. In 1970, our family visited my mother's home town of Byron, Georgia. Byron is a nice small town. In 1970, they had just had a Southern version of Woodstock...the Rock Festival at Byron. I remember the picture in the paper of a guy and a girl...holding hands...walking down a railroad track...from behind...not a stitch of clothing on. I thought, what if you got caught up in it and Really BOUGHT INTO IT? No wonder things have changed. I have worked with two people who grew up in Central Georgia. When asked if they were at the Rock Festival at Byron, I got two answers: ..."No! My parents wouldn't let me go to something like that!" ...and the other answer, with a grin, "We went to look at the girls!"
Teachers at my high school started throwing baby showers for some of the pregnant girls, especially the black girls. Councilors helped them navigate getting welfare money, free apartments, formula, formula, diapers.
Commitment by a woman is very rare. They are always looking for the next better deal. Once marriage for life goes away that "looking" goes into overdrive.
Both sexes trade up. Many men leave their wives who supported them when they were building careers and then left her for a yonger woman. It is no wonder my Mother encouraged me to obtain skills that would be valuable in the marketplace.
That's been my experience and I was a fit strong man that took care of everything and it still wasn't good enough. No way should any man commit to any of them .
I think her argument that the Pill led to abortion is flawed. When Roe v. Wade was decided, many women felt like they no longer needed the Pill or other forms of contraception because they could just get an abortion if they became pregnant. Without abortion being legalized it's possible more women would have used contraceptives.
I don’t know any women in my entire life that have used abortion as a general mode of contraception. It has always been an in case of emergency type of use.
@@ashleynicole9423 Abortion effectively IS used as a form of contraception. The vast majority of abortions are elective (i.e. the baby is unwanted, either by the mother or people around her.) I'm not against contraceptives that prevent pregnancy, but once a woman is pregnant she should not be allowed to kill that child unless it is an absolute medical necessity (either because the pregnancy poses a direct physical danger to her life or the fetus is severely deformed to the point that it has no chance of survival.)
While we're on the subject, allow me to add that I've always been skeptical of the idea that the Pill caused the Sexual Revolution. I think the Sexual Revolution had more to do with the general counterculture, and especially the antiwar movement. The hippies wanted to "stick it" to the establishment in any way they can, and one of the easiest ways to do that was to flout the sexual conventions of the day. Hence things like the Summer of Love and the slogan, "Make love, not war." That said, I agree with the gist of her argument. The Sexual Revolution, whatever its causes, has been tremendously damaging to society in more ways than one.
It was never the intention of such judgements as Rowe and Wade nor the recommendation of the use of Birth Control but to take private life in sexual matters out of the competence of criminal law, because the personal circumstances must be allowed to take steps appropriate to those. The erotic and sexual commercialisation might explain the mores now but the issue that should concentrate minds that sex, in or out of marriage should be predicated on Love and accept accept responsibility for the consequences. I accept that the sociological consequences of sexual revolution have been adverse. I think one should separate law from religion. I think one should recognise that many social attitudes have been transformed by technology. Many other developments have contributed to the changes that are remarked and rejected; The bicycle, the typewriter, the war, that required women to change their rôles and were accordingly liberated from domestic tyranny and boredom. I propose Benedict's law namely that every technology has commensurately equal benefits and dysbenefits but they manifest themselves at different levels of organisation both temporally and spatially. Do not confuse law and theology and morals.
Around Time Stamp 41:00, she states that young people come to Protestant and Catholic Churches looking for Orthodoxy. Why look there when you can find Orthodoxy in the Orthodox Church???
"Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come. " First Corinthians 10:11
I had a freind who confided with me that his girlfriends abortion broke his heart. he was not included in the decision and had taken a high paying job in the Australian desert to be able to support her.
52:43 “shop for people” and “if this one doesn’t work out” arguments only are valid when polygamy or polyamorous relationships are not an option. 7 billion people in the world, chances are that there are more people out there you’re NOT compatible with than people you’re compatible with. Sometimes it takes time for people to truly know. To stay with someone who’s just not healthy for you just because you’re married or have had sex or children with is a sure way to make your life incredibly more difficult and possibly even toxic.
"Stay together for the children" is the worst thing for children if the couple can't stop fighting. Divorce sucks, nonstop fighting parents suck even harder.
I was always looked down upon and rejected by girls and women when I was a teenager and then a young man. I am nearing sixty years old and haven't dated. I have been saving my money and reducing my debts. I own my own home and REFUSE to date and have NO DESIRE whatsoever to date or marry any woman. I don't want the baggage and drama. I had to work very very hard to earn my education and don't want to risk of losing what I have worked very very hard for. WHY take a chance of losing my life's hard work by going to divorce court. NO THANKS!!!! NO WAY!!!! I have just accepted the fact that I WILL NEVER EVER DATE OR GET MARRIED!!! I AM GOING MY OWN WAY!!!! I have known many men my age and younger who have been through divorce court and lost a lot of their hard earned wealth along with going through the perils of child support and child custody matters. I have also known several men and women who have suffered sexually transmitted diseases ( STDs) as well as deal with the effects of unplanned pregnancy issues.So, I guess that I am very very fortunate. I don't have much debt and I have put back, saved, and invested my money throughout the years. I do have some sense of financial security. By the way, I don't have any sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), nor do I have any children out of wedlock. I guess that GOD has spared me from great pain and agony. My advice to everyone is to avoid marriage and dating all together and make sure to take care of yourselves ( because no one else will) and avoid the drama and chaos of pursuing relationships.
@ Brandon washere . The men get unliberated when the divorce court steps in. Men Loose their children change from wealthy or well-off to poor, both sides can lose their home.
PJ ~ What she is saying here is that.....besides "the pill/contraception" becoming available in 1963, WHY the unprecedented rise in both pregnancy & abortion outside of marriage? Yes, other than the 'rhythm-method" all contraception is banned by "the Church", even today, as is abortion & sex outside of marriage. Either way, do I believe she's incorrect w/the date of 1963, overall, b/c several States had "anti-contraception laws on the books & in Connecticut the State's original Constitution banned use of all "contraception". I only have irrefutable info for CT & have read it many times, that we were chosen "specifically" b/c it was in the State's original Constitution along w/being the "most strongly worded". Not to mention.....it was actually a married couple (for lack of a better word) used to eventually propel this issue to the SCOTUS!! The case was appealed to "the Supremes" & overturned in 1965, *"Grizwald v Connecticut"* BUT, I digress..... Her point stands!! If contraception is "taboo" would not that include abortion? Also, sex-ed is widely taught by Catholic parents in the home today, as it was in the 60 & 70's. Those days what was "taught in the schools" was only the 'biological' info, most of the Q&A was answered w/ "ask your parents" ~ LOLOL ~ THAT was 1973 (5th grade) for me!! Same year as Roe, BTW.
In the world I inhabit, it has been difficult for decades to find women who want to be women. They want to be thought of as persons who happen to be female. They become annoyed if you fail to regard them as such, and also if you don't. The result is unappealing in several ways.
As the mere fact that EVERY abortion is the result of an unwanted pregnancy and that every unwanted pregnancy involves a male’s participation, men do not only have the right but the obligation to stand up and be vocal about this issue!
Mary Eberstadt is not a modern feminist, but she is an extreme feminist. Her gynocentric analysis fails to hold women accountable for their bad behavior and choices. Only men are to blame. Only men are empowered. While she makes some good points, she completely lacks a balanced perspective. She sees the world ONLY from the point of view of the female victim. Any casual observer can see that Mary Eberstadt is blind to women's culpability in their own circumstances and in many of today's social problems. Here are some inconvenient facts for Eberstadt to consider: - 100% of abortions are the exclusive decision of mothers. Fathers don't even have the legal right to know that their offspring ever existed. - 80% of divorces are initiated by women, not men, often for selfish and capricious reasons. Thank you No-Fault Divorce. - In 90% of divorces, Women's Court (misnamed Family Court) awards women with child custody, property, and an indentured servant (the father pays more than half his future income to the woman who stole his children and destroyed his family). - A large number of women choose to have babies out of wedlock. Are there any studies to quantify this number? - Women find 80% of men unattractive. Further, women expect marriageable men to have all of the so-called four sixes. If you don't know what that means, look it up. Women are beyond unrealistic. They cross the line into delusion. - Large numbers of women birth multiple babies from different fathers. Why isn't the actual percentage well-known? Because our gynocentric culture protects women from their bad choices. - Single mothers are the worst parents. They raise more criminals, drug addicts, school dropouts, pregnant teens, etc. This is typically framed as a problem of Deadbeat Dads. Yet the mothers prevent fathers from spending time with their children. His only purpose for existing is to pay mothers to finance their harmful bad choices. - Single fathers rarely get custody of the children, but they raise well-adjusted children on par with children raised by both their father and mother. So why does Women's Court continue to overwhelmingly give child custody to single mothers? Why isn't the default position to give fathers child custody? Because Women's Court is a feminist institution to panders to women's wishes. The Court's decisions are rarely in the best interest of the children or the family. The father's welfare is not even on the table. I could go on, but my point is made. Women are the root cause of many of today's social problems. For the most part, women are not victims. Women create victims.
The problem for religious women. They are interested in the top 20% of men (like most women) and that top 20% have no need to respect them in order to fulfill their sexual desires because they are in high demand. If these women want to find a man they need to look to men that are good men, not just men over 6' tall, athletic & high income.
When a woman marries for money she will later regret not marrying for love. You don’t have to be “high income” to be a good provider. Homes in the south cost much less than in the big cities. Stay at home moms tend to start businesses at home and go back to work when children are school age. It’s really not that hard. Just take’s commitment
For years I have asserted the behavior of women envisioned by feminist aligned with that of "frat boys" would devise at 2AM Sunday after not "scoring" on their date..
She hits on something important with laser focus thats easy to digest. Personally for my self by observing in general those who choose to be promiscuous. They have that right In mutual consent I respect despite my beliefs. The immediate gratification in pleasure for me I see. Is really a liability with long term effects in many ways. It not something I would invest in besides the market is flooded.
36:35 "people are wired to believe something". I would agree. However, we have become a culture that believes people aren't wired. (Essentially there's no such thing as human nature, biologically speaking.) This makes it easy to say I can be born in the wrong body. Who and/or what then is this "I"? Clearly not a part of the material universe - after all, it manipulates/supercedes the material universe. Only religions have ever spoken this way.
The birth control pill and the technology enabling safe abortion is not going away. What has driven the end of the traditional family is capitalism itself. Production for the needs of human life is carried out socially by farmers and industrial workers. The farmer is increasingly driven off the land by new technology and the workers is paid a wage that is just enough to sustain himself for work the following pay period. For when the bosses look at their accounting books they ask why should i pay for older workers with families when I can hire a single man who won't get pregnant. Why pay for a new generation when I can entice the young in poor countries to come and fill my jobs. Why pay taxes for healthcare when I can buy all I need. Why pay for educating Dovtor's and Engineers when I can get other countries to train them. This is the thinking of America's grredy ruling class of bosses and bankers. They pay these intelectuals to pretend the don't see any of this and that it is some how connected to a moral decline and not the system of prorfit maximization and greed above all else.
The corporate oligarchs want to get richer and if it means making the poor get poorer, it is considered an acceptable trade. People coming together to demand better wages? Well, time to start a "Borders are racism" campaign and bust that union. Republicans went along with it by saying "Look at the Christian influence in those countries." Sorry, but that won't change the law of supply and demand.
@@skylinefever What is needed is solidarity among all workers not more immigration police. No to deportations a jobs for all program building things working people need.
People have been paying sex workers for ages, and saying it was sometimes illegal didn't mean it was rare. It was the one form of sex without commitment or reproduction that men had. Also, it did a great job of keeping non-select men from doing terrible things, just ask holy man St. Thomas Aquinas.
I'm not sure exactly when it started. However, president Reagan mad it much worse in the 1980s, by signing a no fault divorce bill into law. "Family values" Republicans will do anything to forget about that and call Reagan the greatest president ever.
@@skylinefever When Reagan was a Cali Democrat, he loosened abortion restrictions. I think it was Tom Hank's parents divorce case that instituted ''no fault'' divorce in that state.
You also do realize that sex for money has been around centuries before playboy. Furthermore everyone who is associated with playboy did so voluntarily. And finally I can guarantee you and everyone of those women got paid much much more than any man could ever imagine. Oh yes the women had a very very good
Taylor you should come up with new better tasting meds and safer meds as well with minimum to no side effects. Just throwing that out there. You said you're a biochemist or studying it.
By the way, someone made reference to Bob Jones University's old policy on inter-racial relationships during the Questions & Answers. The questioner mischaracterized the policy as the college not recognizing inter-racial marriages as legitimate. While the News Media might have led the questioner to this inaccuracy in their sloppy reporting with animus behind it, BJU never refused to honor inter-racial marriages. I know this for a fact since I was a student there during the period before Stephen Jones removed the ban on inter-racial dating while people were students at BJU. I sat next to a couple who were of different races in a psychology class. The young man was of European descent and his wife was of East Asian descent. The policy was never to refuse to recognize inter-racial marriages, but to prevent students from dating other students of another race while being students at BJU. So, if a couple met off campus or prior to being a student at BJU and married, then there was no problem when they returned to campus the following semester or if they met years before applying to enroll as a student at BJU. The policy was instituted in the 1950's when the mother of a Chinese student objected to her daughter dating a boy of European descent. The mother threatened to pull her daughter out of the college. She did not want her daughter marrying someone who was not Chinese. Most people then, and really now, don't want their children marrying outside of their race. The policy was put into place to make parents feel their child was being protected while at BJU. The squeamishness on BJU's part about inter-racial marriage was never that such marriages were immoral as in the case of same-sex marriage. The problem was not only with parents objecting to their child marrying outside of their own race, but also the problem arising if a lot of people married outside of their race then the separation of the races would break down and along with them the separateness of the nations and civilizations leading to the Globalism that we are witnessing now. Why is that bad from a theological perspective? Because breaking down national barriers will lead to a one-world economy and society that will eventually lead to a one-world government. Why is that bad? Because the Anti-Christ will eventually head it. The last time humanity was untied was at the Tower of Babel when people united behind the first anti-Christ, Nimod. This is when God separated people into various language groupings that eventually led to the different races, ethnicities, and polities. Given that people have a fallen nature, it is best to keep people divided. When they are re-united, people around the world will once again be set against God.
As a man, I feel it when I meet or glance at one of the many wounded woman who have i guess been the victims of male predation, the look of fear shows repulsivness that is mine because I am a man.
One consequence of the legalization of abortion is the wide spread rejection by men of the role of provider and protect-"Had 2, wanted none" is their mantra. And the widespread belief among men is that the duty of supporting and raising ch/ildren belongs solely to the mother.
So much nonsense she says! The sexual revolution has benefited men and not women? How about family court unfairly benefiting women in matters of alimony, child custody. This is a huge issue and huge injustice. How about women's ability to put a man in jail with only a phone call to police and with no evidence of wrongdoing.? Or having gotten rid of debtors prisons a hundred years ago brought them back only for men who owe family court. Even a wrongful accusation once proven to be wrong rarely results in action against the woman. 23:39 This is not true. Men are NOT abusing women in unrelenting fashion etc. The truth is that women have had an unrelenting gain in employment from laws favoring them in the workplace as well as education, through preferential treatment. Women are getting the world THEY wanted, at the expensive of men. Men can't even have conferences to talk about the rights of men in most universities.
If it wasn't for online gaming, men would spend time doing something else besides finding a wife. XBOX live could evaporate overnight, and you still wouldn't see men rush to seek marriage. Men have seen way too many good men get destroyed by marriage. Men will just have another hobby. Golfing, hunting, fishing, and riding loud motorcycles are popular among men who dropped out of seeking a wife.
Gaming can also be calling obesity with the 14-30 year old males. Also, gym isn't a substitute for Dance places If they bring back couples dancing, and women in skirts, it could change into a more romantic vibe Also, fast dancing can be more of a workout than gym Arthur Murray's is still around
Mary Eberstadt I did a deep dive down the Wikipedia Rabbit Hole of yours and your relatives life and history. Your family and people you and members of your family have Associated and worked with is astounding. Generations of writers and otherwise accomplished people.
I'd like to add after watching the Q & A, that Ms, Eberstadt is about as clueless as 1970's and '80's abstinence leaders as to how to solve this problem. Several of the questioners asked point blank where/how do young women find men. Her answer was for young women to "stop looking down at your phones." Seriously? Young women cannot find good men because the good ones are about as scarce as a double-yolked egg. I can tell you right now that they are NOT in church. If you are a church-goer, take a look at your own congregation and see who outnumbers whom. Visit other congregations and note the same. If you say, well there are plenty of men in my church, take another look around. Are these men by themselves or are they partnered? Chances are very good that they are there with their spouses and kids. You see, church only becomes attractive once you have settled down and have kids. If you are single, naa. Not for you. And even if singles ARE going to church, even the most conservative ones, there is no guarantee that they haven't bought into the sexual revolution to some degree. Just as the majority of American Catholics have rejected Humanae Vitae and quietly use contraception, the same goes for saving sex for marriage among Christians in general. I am willing to bet that there are students at Hillsdale College, perhaps even in that audience, who say yes yes to her message but are still privately having sex outside of marriage. It may not be as promiscuous as hookup culture, but they are sexually active nonetheless. Yes, the churches probably should be doing more to bring young single people together but at this stage of the game it is a lot like locking the barn door after the horse has gotten out. Just as employers are now finding out that if there are no applicants you cannot magically wave a wand and create them out of nothing, the church cannot create what is not there in the first place. Men overwhelmingly do not accept the idea of saving sex for marriage. This is a fact and it does not help that the majority of abstinence programs are aimed at young women, thus setting them up for disappointment because they are encouraged to seek out something that does not exist. Yes, I am being blunt. Furthermore, as "Better Bachelor" has pointed out in his RUclips channel, when it comes to the dating pool, women only have the "advantage" during their 20's. Once they get beyond that, the "advantage" shifts to the older guys who have an seemingly endless pool of free-and-easy 20-somethings and who are not interested in women their age. So this is also driving the rise in women not being able to marry. The lesson for women seems to be: delay marriage too long, for whatever reason, and you will end up never getting married. My take on all this is that BOTH sides have lied to young women and young men, all with good intentions, of course. Perhaps there are signs of hope on the horizon, but I do not see it. The sexual revolutionaries have won, and as long as people who don't want to buy into it are penalized in the dating/marriage market, they will continue to win.
My impression is that some women have unrealistic expectations. They do not want to marry the first man who asks them, but rather a man who is charismatic and sweeps them off their feet. And because such men are rare, eventually fussy women do not get married to any man. Ii would guess that abortions increase because they are available. People may think they can risk an unwanted pregnancy because they can resort to abortion as an out. If they were afraid of unwanted pregnancy with no resort to abortion, perhaps they would be more careful. They might use two or three methods of birth control simultaneously in order to reduce the chance of pregnancy to the minimum, if there were no possibility of abortion. And as well, perhaps many people are willing to adopt children who are not their biological children and this possibility might be greater and provide a way to avoid raising the product of unintentional pregnancies. Or am I mistaken?
No, James....You are NOT wrong!! IMHO, perhaps these girls & their 'unrealistic exceptions' should wait for the guy who is *"charismatic and sweeps them off their feet"* before they go giving themselves away? I wonder.....in the age of these 4th or 5th? wave of "feminists".....do they even think about what kinda 'woman' those exceptional men might want?? ~ Just FTR: I'll be 60 in a few months, never did see any "need for feminism" ~ as my Mother's generation had fought (&won) that fight, lolol. Sooooo, my point? The whole thing was to #1 ~ *Double the tax-base by getting the women out of the home* which in turn, allowed for breaking up "the nuclear family" & putting the education of their children into the State's control!!
I found one woman that I might have married. Alas --- she had no interest in me. Circa 1982, when she was thirty years of age, she told me that her plan, her PLAN, was to marry Bill Gates, a man she had never met. When 'old Bill did get married, I did the arithmetic: the woman who wanted to marry him was three years older than Gates. The woman Gates married was thirteen years younger than he was. This woman turned seventy in September, never married and never had children. However, Bill Gates was divorced recently---- perhaps she will make another run at him! And she was a smart, management level corporate employee.
@@SeattlePioneer Some people plan things in terms of cost and benefit. Supposedly Nancy Reagan, before she married Ronald, had made a list of men in Hollywood that she thought might be good matches for her. Apparently Ronald was at the top of the list, or he was the one who responded positively. But they did seem to be a good pair, so far as I know. I have only been able to find one woman who turned me down in my 20s. She told me she never married. though she must be over 70 now. I think she has an adversarial attitude to the world,and that includes men. She world rather take potshots at a man than love him. Probably most such women end upnever marrying or perhaps marrying and divorcing several times. Partners of either sex, or should I say all sexes, cannot have non-negotiable demands that the other could never accept. There has to be mutual conpromise and concessions to each other. In one of the RUclips videos the author reported he had chatted with an executive woman who was around 40 and asked her, if she wanted children. She said yes, she loved children, she just did not like men. With such an attitude it would seem a happy marriage might be difficult.
All of the "human rights" movements have been about freedoms minus responsibility. I've never seen nor heard of anyone marching or lobbying for responsibilities. Feminism wanted equal rights without equal duties & responsibilities, and that's all it has ever wanted or will ever want. None of the "movements" were ever about "equality" at all, but just "gimme" movements. Gimme more stuff at someone else's expense, is at the bottom of all the so-called "rights" issues. And the white male seems to be the only 'interest group' that never had a movement, because it was thought that every white male rules the world.....somehow....has everything given and done for him, can do anything he pleases, and has no responsibilities - until it's time to pay up his "fair share" on behalf of everyone else of course. They could foresee it alright, but preferred to appear not to, because they knew it wasn't about facing up to anything, but only about using the law to oppress others while claiming to be the victims. Now, in spite of all the "progress" of the human rights BS, the new generation of special interest groups feels more oppressed than ever, as if all the 'progress' had actually gone the opposite direction. That's the part nobody foresaw - that being made more 'equal' would have the opposite effect and just make them feel all the more oppressed. And again, it's because it was never about equality, but only a ploy to get free goodies. And it worked so well for it's true purpose, that being a victim is all the rage now, and it's why women and other oppressed groups are screaming louder than ever before.
They read it. They were all atwitter before hand, hoping the Pope would say "sure, do what ever you want!" When it didn't say what they wanted, and they couldn't find a flaw, they suppressed it. Even the Bishops.
Humanae Vitae is freely offered on line. It's not being suppressed. It may not be appreciated or encouraged as it should be by Bishops, clergy etc. but it is offered and easily available. It's brilliantly written and a very worthwhile read.
It certainly is well written. But get a Priest speaking about it in many diocese, and they will shut him down. The Winnipeg Statement was nothing but trying to suppress it.
Hmmmm....there's a third element (aside from empowering women's choices and the economics of the sexual revolution) - that of the family law legal environment in which relationships, children and marriage exist and operate. In western society and in North America, the legal regime has done a great deal to redress historic power and economic imbalances...but for men the legal consequences of the system as it currently exists represents yet another reality that they factor into choices about relationship, child and marriage choices.
Conservatives hate mentioning that, even though they ought to be aware that incentives drive behavior, and the financial incentives of marriage and children aren't there.
Perhaps, but there are a lot of fake statistics flying around, especially in RP videos. Only 11% of women get alimony and most custody arrangements are 50/50. It may be that women file for most of the divorces, but the reasons why are never given.
This is a largely persuasive summary of the period spanning 1960-2010, but no young people today will recognize the world she describes. Men, not women, face a disastrous sexual, dating, and marriage market. They have been professionally displaced, vilified, and abandoned to loneliness, addiction, and deaths of despair. The culture of harassment and predation she describes has been replaced by a world in which boys and men cannot even flirt with classmates or co-workers at risk of personal destruction. So: good lecture here, and I want to read the book, but this characterization of the world left by the sexual revolution is likely to sound improbable or irrelevant to millennials and Gen Z.
44:40 it couldn’t be more clear that the church has to be much more involved in this or it will only get worse. But I’m not sure the church wants to be involved? People wanting a Christian marriage seem to be very much on their own. Why? This speaker struggles with answers for change.
Gendercide was practiced in other societies when the method was just to leave them in the forest, let alone a nice, sterile procedure. This was all foreseeable!
@@skylinefever I have not been researching China for nearly as long. And what I do see is largely from the YT channels ADV Podcast, and it's hosts' channels. If you like, check them out and let me know where you think they are in error. But what they show me breaks my heart. More than that, it breaks my heart for N Korea. When that regime collapses (which it must eventually), those people are going to have to relearn almost every aspect of being a "healthy" society.
I think that a distinction needs to be made between men who are sexually successful and those who are not. There’s a huge difference. Woman on average only desire 15% of men. So those small fraction of men have been hugely empowered as she said. For vast majority of men though, the sexual revolution just means that there’s plenty of porn to watch while the continue to not get laid.
Mike Schnobrich, I don’t think that a celibate lifestyle looks illegitimate, but it does seem unpopular. For some men, yes it’s quite plain that they measure their success as men through sexual conquest. And through that scope lots of men remain to be empowered by the sexual revolution. The speaker is making a case that the sexual revolution empowered men and not women. So I’m bringing up a subtlety to show that maybe her reasoning is centered on the female perspective. I think sexual access is a question that has more context for the individual than for society. I don’t think sexual access is something a society could or should promise. Nor should it impose. Hopefully that’s what the sexual revolution is trying to achieve
You are right, I was thinking the same thing. Women often get this wrong. I think it's because they can have sex on demand, they assume this is how it is for all men too.
We need a return to biblical standards if we profess to be Christians. Perhaps she could have ended her lecture on a strong positive note in the vein of the aforementioned standard. Colin John.
This still does not explain why one third of the senior class was pregnant. The pill does work. The girls weren't all stupid, were they? So, they must have been engaging in reckless sex that they did not engage in, before. As women file for the vast majority of divorces, not staying in a marriage would seem to be a problem with them.
Trapping Men... Using Men ... Discarding Men. And the drama didnt end there.. it has shifted. Feminism introduced Marxism to america, and it has been downhill ever since. The drama of Marxism has spread like the Mental illness it is. Furthermore: the "revolution" is completely and wholly Women's fault. Feminism, and the Women's liberation movement too, are specifically named after the gender that caused 99% of the damage. It took 100s of years, but the "average" Men built Civilizations the likes of which the world has never seen: Outrageously great: Food production; Medical practices; Energy; Building; Businesses; Free-trade... But it took only a handful of years for Women to undermine it all. One take away is that Women, unrestrained by common civil moral standards, have shown their true nature. Another is that those people do NOT deserve good and Honorable Men .. Marriage rates dropped from 97% to less than 1% today due to women undermining themselves as well as marriage laws. These beasts are not my problem. I can't fix them.. and I sure as shift will NOT support them or prop up this HORRID culture they built.
abortion IS barbaric. Rather giving people the money to pay for their mistakes than having them learn to be responsible people is the new norm I guess. Especially late stage abortion should be banned till the end of time.
Thank you Mary Eberstadt. I have no formal education and knowledge of sociology as you do, but as a middle-aged woman who has experienced and long felt what you so beautifully articulated, I wept as I listened. I wept because I have long known that this revolution has ultimately not served my gender as it intended. I wept for all the women who have been told they are free, but most often feel confused, shameful and/or rejected. I know now that all the frustrations I felt in being a 'modern' and 'free' young woman were because my society abandoned all the traditional structures that more aptly protected and guided young women into fulfilling romantic and domestic lives. I hope we will face these realities and rethink the revolution.
In general, adults understand the relationship between freedom, rights, and responsibility. The problem is our children don't know that they are still children. It's not to do with age, it's about experience.
Despite your lack of formal education, it's obvious that you have more wisdom and knowledge than all the professors at Columbia University combined.
Hasn't been a picnic for the average man either btw.
Doris, you are the wisdom woman.
Jiiilkkkk8u8uiiikllkkkj
Being a Baby Boomer, I do miss my "American Graffiti" days. When I lost my wife of 30 years was a disaster for me (and likely for my children). I did not know "how to date". Gentleman-like behavior, courtesy, flowers, ... were no longer the norm - some women thought that I was "gay" (I am not). I grew up in a protective rural environment (Northeast farmland) where you married for life. We still had our teenage hormones raging (and subsequent fantasies) but there was something we as adolescent learned quickly about, that was respect. Like mentioned in her first example, getting a girl pregnant would usually bring the male more rejection from the community (if he did not marry his girlfriend) than the girl. Also, it was difficult not to care (emotionally and physically) for the girl one was dating when you knew her entire family, probably went to school with her brother(s)/sister(s) which created some social pressure (or behavior guideline). I must admit that years later, coming back to my community - I noticed that the natives (i.e. my peers that had stayed in the community) were for the most part still married whereas the ones who had left (military, college, urban life) had for the most part divorced at least once (according to our high school reunion). As a physician (suburban cities), I was very liberal with my prescription of birth control but as she mentioned, the rate of abortion increased (according to the nearby clinic data). This tells me that we (our culture) lost something somewhere - many of us cannot live in this "complete freedom" without getting hurt (or worse, hurting someone else). Teenagers (and adults) need some guidance, some boundaries, until the time they mature enough to develop (hopefully) their own values and principles (this first paragraph was written around 2018)
Addendum Jan 2023 - I must say that I do not think that we are heading in the right direction (United States/Canada). It is painful to me to foresee what my grand-children will face as they reach adolescence. Our youth needs guidance, a direction, a lighted path towards ideals higher than self-satisfaction/gratification/promotion/... Truth, honor, courage, and commitment are virtues that require constant "honing" if not "work" but will leave us (or fellow humans) with the satisfaction of doing or having done "the right thing". And yes, it is not easy, I know as I am still "working" on it. There is still something right if not noble about helping someone else, displaying kindness, and addressing fellow humans with respect (yes, even using words such as "sir", "miss", and/or "madam/ma'am). May Peace be with you and may God help us all...
Ciao, L
Very well put sir!
Hi Miss Mcphee, I am glad you appreciated my comments and I do hope that our (American) society will "normalize" for the sake of our children (grand-children in my case). May God bless you, Ciao, L
Cut welfare, remove the special help for women. Let people compete.
Problem solved.
This is an excellent comment. This physician knows what he is saying. His comment is based on what is really happening. Many people refuse to see his point because they want their freedom to have their 5 minutes of fun without having to consider how it affects others and even themselves. Nobody wants to be told what to do anymore, especially in the department of morality (even talking about God is "unfashionable"). Rampant selfishness has seared their consciences. These people promise freedom but it comes at a high cost of loosing all meaning of life and a sense of purpose. No wonder depression is going up and so is suicide. Sad.
@@RobertJones-et7gh Depression and self destruct is going on plenty more in low status men. They may be considered to have "Sexual freedom" but obviously they don't have anything.
So many of us, including myself, who grew up in a home with loving parents, religion, and high standards for behavior, still fell for the lies of sexual freedom and birth control. There was nothing free about it- constantly worrying if you’re pregnant, hoping you don’t get an STD, knowing girls who sought an abortion even though we were all taught that it was wrong
Beautifully and eloquently delivered. Hillsdale College is a beacon hope. Hope to send my children there someday.
Wow…I just happened across this speech purely by chance & decided to give it a listen…BRILLIANT! Thought-provoking, engaging, very well-laid-out! WELL DONE😊
As a life-long observer of things human, I can say that Ms Eberstadt has done an admirable attempt to describe the effects of the sexual revolution in the 60's till now, but it's too vast a topic to encapsulate in an hour. There are so many issues left out, and I cannot begin to fill in the gaps, but want to mention a couple of things: the influences of porn and the power of the media in shaping young (and older) mindsets.
We cannot underestimate the effects of these two points enough. Having said that, something that did come to mind as I listened to her wonderful lecture is the song "Hotel California"...you can check in anytime, but you can never leave.
It is exceedingly difficult to change a young (and older) mind once they have found their "freedom". It is just as near impossible to "convert" a homosexual into becoming straight. Western society's influencers know this. Their selfish intent to lead the young to a life of indulgence and pleasure is socially harmful and barely perceived by the ones being shaped.
*I don’t know what many of you commenters are talking about. She didn’t just “blame” men or women. She exposed causation on many aspects. Some of u are so simplistic in your analysis.*
Sadly that train of thought seems to be fairly dominant when looking at issues, social and beyond. People want others to be a single cause for a single effect , neglecting to look at a variety of factors and how they interact with each other. Rarely are wide scale issues going to be like for like in the solution
Fair enough. But the "revolution" is completely and wholly Women's fault. Feminism, and the Women's liberation movement too, are specifically named after the gender that caused all the damage. It took 100s of years, but the "average" Men built Civilizations the likes of which the world has never seen: Outrageously great: Food production; Medical practices; Energy; Building; Businesses; Free-trade... But it took only a handful of years for Women to undermine it all.
One take away is that Women, unrestrained by common civil moral standards, have shown their true nature. Another is that those people do NOT deserve good and Honorable Men .. Marriage rates dropped from 97% to less than 1% today due to women undermining themselves as well as marriage laws. These beasts are not my problem. I can't fix them.. and I sure as shift will NOT support them or prop up this HORRID culture they built.
Seeing these students gives me hope for the future.
There is an old saying. "Why buy the cow if you can get the milk for free." She is not bashing men, she is just making a valid point.
Except for the obvious fact that women have total control of the legal system and this has been an absolute disaster for men, especially if they marry. Marriage and children are largely zero risk for women and with the "unilateral, no fact" divorce system they put in place concurrent with the sexual revolution, it is a hopeless situation for men. Like many, I have no children because even getting the paternity test to determine if the children are your children is considered a crime in many jurisdictions. Well, as any intelligent man would do, I responded accordingly.
@@russscott6837 Why buy the cow if it has horns and a bad temper
Incentives drive behavior, and people with any sense will get used to that.
@@russscott6837 unfortuntely you have identified yet another poorly thoughtout and even to me a female, totally illogical 'rule of the road' not fair at all.
@@justadummy8076 Yes! Equally true for men & women!! So true.
Fascinating, intelligent, and compelling lecture,... and presented very simply and coherently. Thank you!!!
What a lovely, intelligent woman. These issues desperately need airing..! God bless her.
Thomas how can a cowardly deity that is into blood sacrifice,murder (especially children) ,is a professional at hide&seek and is invisible be good "no"religions are dangerous 😳
In the late 60's, with something gained, things were lost. Like the "one income family". I also witnessed women, whom grew up thinking their destiny was to be "mom", yet, in the 60's, had other options. My real mother put her kids up for adoption, not wanting to be a mom, and my adoptive mom, came to the same conclusion, and stuck her adopted children, with her daughter, when she went to first high school, and then college. Vietnam, and the failure of the factories to stay in the USA had a drastic effect on the male female dynamics. First creating a shortage of men in the local area. Leading to competition from the local girls, leading to some regrets after the end of Vietnam. Also, preViet-nam, there was alot of factories, but post Vietnam, the work environment changed. And became friendly towards hiring women, causing some women, whom had fought a nasty battle to pull men from their wives, to blame the men they were chasing, years later. (lol). I was a child, but I witnessed alot of weird changes in the late 60-s, whereas the drama appeared to end about 76, like it never happened.
No, the Drama didnt end .. it shifted. Feminism introduced Marxism to america, and it has been downhill ever since. The drama has spread like the Mental illness it is. Furthermore: the "revolution" is completely and wholly Women's fault. Feminism, and the Women's liberation movement too, are specifically named after the gender that caused 99% of the damage. It took 100s of years, but the "average" Men built Civilizations the likes of which the world has never seen: Outrageously great: Food production; Medical practices; Energy; Building; Businesses; Free-trade... But it took only a handful of years for Women to undermine it all.
One take away is that Women, unrestrained by common civil moral standards, have shown their true nature. Another is that those people do NOT deserve good and Honorable Men .. Marriage rates dropped from 97% to less than 1% today due to women undermining themselves as well as marriage laws. These beasts are not my problem. I can't fix them.. and I sure as shift will NOT support them or prop up this HORRID culture they built.
I believe the lost Gen Z is due in large part to the quality vs quantity time debate. Adoption of Dr Spock methods of discipline has resulted in undisciplined, rebellious lost children, raised in daycare, desperate for attention and turning to extremes. Children basically spend early years attending daycare like they have to get up for a job. Women have adopted Playboy/Cosmopolitan ideals of having prostitute skills, adopted sexually immodest clothing and behavior. They have become like men were encouraged to be, sexually promiscuous . Why buy the cow when the milk is free?
@@jdy1054 Close. "Why buy the cow" when it isnt a cow at all but you recognize it as being a diseased and blistered, dishonorable, road-kill-skunk
Hi Norman, I feel sad for your family (of origin) experience. My parents' divorce in ~1960, brought disaster to my "innocent childish world" and rejection from the town I lived in, as if I carried the sign of their "original sin" on my forehead. My mother did put me for adoption but I had the salvation of being adopted by my grand-parents, who were farmers/ranchers in a very closely knit rural community. They provided me the "paradise lost" that I was envying watching vintage wholesome TV shows of the fifties/early sixties (Father knows best, Donna Reed Show, Mickey Mouse Club, Leave it to Beaver...)
Looking back, I am not so sure about what the net balance of what our society gained/lost is/was in the end. Peace be with you, Ciao, L
Yes, options arrived, and people took them in huge numbers.
Why change shitty diapers when you can work a job, make your own money, and travel where you want?
For those asking what can we do?
Until women know their value, they give away their sexuality. They can’t blame men for an action that leaves them vulnerable. I’ve studied some of the indigenous practices that protects the woman. The man had to prove his ability to provide to her parents. This makes him proud of his role. He came to her family where she was protected against abuse. These were some Native American traditions. Also one good book was “Honoring Menstration” where women are more valued in rituals such as the quincenera. She develops and understands her rank. This book had many other cultural practices!
Why are you asking what "we" can fo, yet answering what WOMEN can do? Why is it always women's fault, and women's obligation to change?
The sexual "revolution" was and is degrading and insulting to women. Hollywood pushed the idea of women, because of feminism, didn't need men to participate in child rearing. Look at us now. 60% of children do not have a father! Feminism was wholly negative for women, men and children. Still is.
Life is a balance. Men need women and women need men.
The problem is that we generally need different things for the other side, watching separate movies on the same screen. 😕
No you just need a woman
Lolita by Nebakov was published in Playboy in the late 1950s. This book was written to illustrate the behavior and beliefs of sexual predators. But publishing in Playboy turned it into a playbook for child predation. The movie gave the idea that young girls were mini sex addicts ready to seduce men. Hefner has done great damage to women around the world.
Yes, for all those talking about how ''feminism'' has ruined dating and sex, I have to remind them that Hefner's responsibility free bachelor's life came first.
No it didn’t
How does this not go viral?
I will preface my comments by saying I agree with much of what she says and what I disagree with is a matter of degree, from mild disagreement in some areas to matters of semantics in others. Too trivial to mention. But I have a different take on a couple of concepts -- not outright disagreement, just a different take on some things she mentioned.
Early in the video, around 5 minutes in, she talks about how most men, in the community she was describing, worked as laborers. And families "no matter how chaotic, stayed intact" So I have thoughts about both of those things. The idea that a man in most communities now, could now "take responsibility" and support a family today -- the question is "On what wages?" There aren't well paying factory jobs in great volume that way nowadays and haven't been for ages. The golden age of unionized labor is over as the factory owners outsource overseas, mine owners have stripped everything, and both enthusiastically bust unions here, all because they want record profits and don't want to pay labor enough to support thriving families. If there is a golden age past to return to, it needs some kind of economic underpinning which involves paying adults male or female enough to support families.
The other thoughts are about the chaotic families staying intact -- is that really an unquestioned good? Chaotic families are stressful at their very best, lethally dangerous at their very worst. Please, everyone, be careful with this idea that intact families are themselves part of a golden past to return to.
The whole "failure to launch" is due just as much or more to economic instability than it is to the sexual revolution. Lack of steady well paying jobs for people with limited education is the primary problem. The issues of the sexual revolution are real enough, I'm not disagreeing with much of what she says, I am going to submit for consideration that these problems are the secondary cause of societal breakdown rather than the primary. Good solid economic options could make it so much more possible for moral people to make good moral choices.
Yes, those jobs have gone. Also, investment firms bought much of the real estate so that they could have a firm grasp on the price.
But don't bother trying to get conservatives to do anything about that, decent paying jobs and not letting investment bankers monopolize would be socialism.
Look up the words of the song Baby It's Cold Outside. The girl has a list of reasons why she can't stay with the man, and he tries to persuade her otherwise. Contraception has removed all her reasons, she no longer has disapproving family, social restrictions - no reason not to stay late with the man. This is the result of women's new "freedom". It takes away all rationale for saying "no".
Women only need one reason to say no: “I don’t want to.” Contraception isn’t making anyone have sex. Only predators try to deprive us of choice.
As someone who came of age during the late 1970's I experienced the dark side of the sexual revolution firsthand. By insisting that sex was this "wonderful thing" that ought to be experienced without strings attached, its proponents inadvertently created a "rape culture" which we are still trying to deal with. I believe wholeheartedly that the increase of child sexual abuse is part and parcel of the sexual revolution. A couple of years ago a woman I worked with told me that the reason she slept with guys right off the bat was not because she was sexually attracted to them but because she had learned AS A CHILD that SEX WAS SOMETHING OTHERS TOOK FROM YOU and therefore she might as well go ahead and get it over with as guys would simply take it anyway. This way she "might" at least get some enjoyment out of it. That is truly mind-boggling. Thinking back to my own experiences 45 years ago, I could not honestly say that is not true. Because it was, very much so, back in the 1970's and beyond. I was derided by my peers, both male and female, because I insisted on waiting until marriage. Consent? NO ONE talked about consent. If you were dating that meant you intended at some point to have sex with the person you were dating and the more times you went out the more this became an obligation.
At the same time the abstinence movement was trying to counter this. BUT, the BIG problem with the abstinence movement is that the people leading it had ABSOLUTELY NO CONCEPTION of what dating was like in the 1970's. NONE WHATSOEVER. They were either married (and had been for quite some time) or vowed celibates (priests/nuns). They had no skin in the game. All they knew was that people, especially young women, were out having sex outside of marriage and they did not like it. They did not know the struggles those of us who bought into their message were going through. How hard it was to even find someone to go out with. The awkward and totally nonromantic conversation that had to be brought up right from the start--No, I am not going to go to bed with you. Because you see, there was no innocence anymore. You didn't just go to a movie or out to dinner or dancing and leave it at that. Oh, no. On my first date I was sexually molested by a fellow classmate during a movie we had gone to see together. There was NOTHING, NOTHING, that prepared me for this. There was nobody I could talk to, because these things did not happen to good Catholic girls, and if it did, it was because I must have led him on. Again, "date rape" was not even on the radar as far as abstinence leaders were concerned. So I totally get what my coworker was saying. Because if it was that bad in the 1970's how much worse was it now?
I just wonder how many other scarred women are out there, women who lost the chance to marry because they bought in to an obsolete idea that almost no males had bought into. I know that they exist, because I've run into them online. Yet nobody talks about these victims of the sexual revolution. Quite frankly, I don't know what I would tell teenagers these days. There was one teenage girl that I was in a play with who talked about her purity ring and wanting to wait until marriage. At the time I was about 20 years older than her. I said, "Come back to me when you are 40 or 50 and we will talk about this. Because what nobody is telling you is that you are reducing your chances of marrying by insisting on waiting."
My mother always said that the pendulum would eventually swing back to the old ways, but I am not so sure. There is a whole movement of men who are walking away not only from marriage but from relationships (Men Going Their Own Way, MGTOW). I can't say that I blame them. I too have chosen to go my own way. I have no desire to be part of hookup culture.
you maybe right about the MGTOW but they didn't abandon sex so we have a prerogative. No ring, no sex.
@@chamuelolivier1594 Actually, we DON'T have a prerogative. The time when women were in the drivers' seat concerning courtship and marriage is long gone. As you rightly pointed out the MGTOW are not abandoning sex. So who are they having sex with? It's fairly obvious. The woman who insists on no ring no sex may very well find herself without either because she is competing against women who offer cheap, abundant sex without any strings attached. It's a matter of supply and demand. There is no demand for partners who say no ring no sex. That is the cold hard truth. But there IS a big demand--as well as a big supply--for those who say sex without a ring is just fine. Those of us who hold onto traditional values are not calling the shots anymore. That horse has long left the barn. It's time to stop pretending otherwise.
@@theresemalmberg955 So we can see how MGTOW are hypocryts. They're just men who want sex without comitment. I feel so sorry for women who can't find a real relationship. The law of jungle prevails and it's just horrible. The sexual "liberation" has freed men, not women. It worked for me because , as a religious woman, i chose to marry a religious man.
I agree with a lot of what you’re saying here. My childhood was just like the woman you worked with.
That said, I don’t think the 1960s created rape culture, it just gave predators a different set of tools. Traditional predators tell their victims, “You’re a sinner. You tempted me. You just be ashamed of yourself.” OTOH, countercultural predators say, “You wanted this. I’m just liberating you from sexual repression.” One way or the other, predators like to shift the blame.
@@catsmom129 Absolutely. However, I do think that while predators have always been around, they have not been enabled and supported to the extent that they are now.
My parents were born during the Depression; my older brother is a Baby Boomer, myself, Generation X. I never fell for the "sexual liberation" of women since I was not raised that way, moreover, a woman's love needs to be earned for a reason and it is not a societal reason, either.
To SUPER GENERALIZE in a couple of ways:
1. Solving one problem often creates another.
2. A single change can potentially bring about unanticipated and often undesirable changes.
3. When a change in a status quo is brought about, something will happen to balance it out; that something may not be good.
Oh yeah, love this video. Thank you Mrs. Eberstadt.
I am learning this the hard way. My girlfriend became pregnant and I wanted to get married because. That’s what you do!
She refused said we weren’t ready for that.
Now we’re broke up and my child will have a broken home. I feel terrible about it. I should have listen to what I was taught
I sense terrible pain and regret in your comment. I am here to tell you the good news that God can heal you and help you make the most of a tough situation, if only you turn to Him.
Stay close to your child and the ''harm'' will be greatly minimized.
Let her be a single mom and go get you a wife somewhere else. America doesn't produce wives anymore. Go overseas and find a good wife with traditional family values.
Old saying- women give sex to get married. Men get married to get sex. Marriage served different needs that dovetail to make both into a loving relationship. Now there’s lots of sex but no love. Hence the problems.
What about the following problem. There is less opportunity for men in the workplace because women take many formerly male jobs. Add this to the fact that most women won’t marry a man who makes less money than they do. ie, most women don’t want to marry a stay at home dad. No wonder there are less marriages.
My parents had five children.
I never married or had children to avoid the risk of divorce, child custody and child support
My sister never married or had children ---reasons unknown
One brother killed at age 15
One brother married, no children
One brother married and two children.
So, more than a hundred years after my parents were born, the result is two people in the third generation.
A guy's money means nothing to me, besides that he isn't sitting on a couch all day. I think one reason women/girls on dating sites make money a prerequisite is because those sites are 70% male and the women get inundated with ''offers'' from men, so the women try to weed them out anyway they can.
Very impressive lecture and extremely informative!
Thanks you so much. You're blessing the families of the earth! Gen 28:14
The failure of contraception in the example she used is the result of a lack of education, access, and personal accountability. I'm from a similar small town, and the teen pregnancy rate was also high. One of the problems is that there was literally no sex ed. My high school health class essentially left it to 'don't have sex until marriage, or you could get AIDS and die.' That's not an exaggeration, and the misconceptions about pregnancy and sex were ridiculous. I'm an EMT, and even in 2018 I still have patients who believe in things like certain positions, 'pulling out', or being on your period prevent pregnancy. Again, sadly enough, that's not an exaggeration.
Another problem was that even though contraception was legal access was limited at best. It's not unusual for doctors and pharmacies to not prescribe or sell certain items to people under 18, or (with certain types) to anyone at all. Others might refuse to sell them without parental approval. Even if that wasn't the case it would take a week tops for the gossip to wind through town. Women's clinics and places like Planned Parenthood were often an hour or more away, and required a vehicle and money to get there.
I do agree that we have failed massively at teaching kids the personal responsibility, morality, and self respect to wait to have sex and to step up to the plate if there's a pregnancy. There have been attempts such as with purity culture movement, but that has also backfired massively. Sexual purity has been put on a pedestal far and above other virtues, and has been turned into an un-Biblical all or nothing thing. This often results in extreme guilt over thoughts and acts that can lead to starting sexual activity since they already feel they're failures and 'dirty.' The way it's taught is also disturbingly tone deaf to teens who have been raped/molested.
facetiousbadger: Sex "education"-- teaching sexual techniques to underage kids-- promotes more sexual activity, not less. And by the way, the World Health Organization has classified oral contraceptives as a Class I carcinogen, one that's been linked to breast cancer. So it's dangerous for anyone taking it, but especially for teens. And it has about a 10% failure rate-- so it actually leads to more abortions. So thanks a bunch for promoting abortion and breast cancer and abuse of women, because like it or not, that's exactly what feminism does. All in the name of "equality", of course. (Translation: me, me, me)
Yeah, yeah the revolution wasn't wrong it was just executed badly. Typical proggy apologia.
rwatertree I never said that, either. If you actually read my comment you'd know that.
Ann G. That isn't true, and you know it. You can't change minds with bad data, it's part of how we got in this mess in the first place.
Your points allude to the idea that if they had just done it right, put up the PP centres in the optimal locations, taught kids how to swallow a pill or put on a condom etc. everything would have been peachy.
This is an interesting talk and like her book Primal Screams: How the Sexual Revolution Created Identity Politics may be intended as a conversation starter rather than a strong academic argument. The lack of sources and studies, as someone has already noted in the comments, makes me think this is the case. I agree with Mary that in some ways women have not really come out ahead since the 1960's but I am not convinced by Mary's argument here that the Sexual Revolution can be fingered as the only culprit for womens' unhappiness. In conjunction with the Sexual Revolution came state sponsored welfare states, a second wave of feminism and in some places, like Quebec, Canada, a secularization of government accompanied by a turning away from a state religion (Roman Catholicism). Each is a significant socio-political movement in itself. I agree with Mark Lilla when he wrote "All narratives that focus on a single cultural moment as a decisive break in history risk falling into a classic logical fallacy: post hoc ergo propter hoc, whatever follows an event is caused by that event. Pessimistic theories of historical decline almost always fall into this error."
As for Mary's thesis that society has been degraded and women have not benefited I want to point out that most men have not benefited either. The 15 to 20% of men that capture the attention of most women may have "benefited" from some casual sex for a while but they have certainly had to pay the bill and much more when the #MeToo movement came along. Men like Harvey Weinstein deserved to be punished but sadly many men who were not guilty of anything other than being male were swept up in the hysteria and anger of what was now a third wave of feminism gone off the rails. Witness what Brett Kavanaugh was put through and read the comments below that point out how women now get their way in family court whether this is just or not.
Mary has pointed out in books and talks how pornography has harmed men, marriages and families but I haven't heard her say anything about romance novels and the women who are addicted to this type of "porn". The biggest demographic among the purchasers of the novel 'Fifty Shades of Grey' were middle aged women. Women file for divorce more than men do. I think women need to take their share of the responsibility for the state of families today and for where we go from here.
I agree and today women are not only reading pornography they are actually directing and producing pornography. One example is the article "Meet the Powerful Women Directors Working in Porn." There was also a NETLIX documentary about this.
We as a society men, women and now children have slid so far from Biblical principles. It's heartbreaking. I looked up the movie The Jesus Revolution and its more Hollywood BS trying to talk us into the lie thay these sexual revolutions are (and have been/60's) a good thing. Justifying LGBTQ as just another day in "progressive paradise " to them. Never mind the mental health confusion and further degradation of the family. Schools too. It's sick.
We as a species for the last 60 years have been socially engineered by a very small percentage of "educated" people. Anything "educated" people say,especially young ones, i take with a VERY large dose of salt!
Michael Kelligan anti intellectualism ain’t cool
@@lessonstolivefor Maybe if education was more about hard facts and not about so much useless filler, people with degrees would be taken more seriously.
One reason many people had a hard time getting through HS was because they couldn't stand another moment of Shakespearian statistics?
It's a modern myth that there wasn't reliable, dependable birth control before the pill. Combining rhythm & CI methods, the average prevention rate is actually better than the pill. The difference is that those two methods require cooperation, and the pill does not. The pill is a unilateral reproductive decision by one party. Was the pill a unilateral decision in favor of women that men then responded to by removing themselves from reproductive responsibility? Who knows. Legal abortion could be another factor--another process that removes men entirely from reproductive decision-making. And this is similar to the point the speaker makes. When you create a 100% laissez-faire sex marketplace, you create a few extreme winners and lots of losers in men (increasing the value of $$$ in sex market), and drive up assortative mating in adulthood marriage market, which further concentrates wealth. This does not in effect "privilege men". It privileges a very few men, and is a callback to early state sexual ethics at the beginning of history, where there are 17 times more female ancestors than male ancestors.
I would enjoy men getting an equivalent device. Vasalgel was supposed to be that device, but pharma lobbyists delayed it with FDA beauracracy.
"Who could have seen the library of..." Pope Paul the VI did. I've just been introduced to Kipling's "Gods of the Copybook"... sure feels like he foresaw it. It was foreseeable! All it took was a rational mind, and a willingness to overlook the allure of "Hey, all the sex you could ever want!"
Sexual deviance ie sex without marriage, was one of the major factors in destroying the Roman Empire. Empires fall from within. They work hard to get to the top, but once there they get careless and lazy. Sexuality then is unleashed and the consequences of unwanted pregnancies, disease, and relational destruction are the result. The problem with America is we had not gotten to that point until the 60's. Even in the 20's when people were drinking illegally and somewhat deviant, the country did not embrace it as a majority.
There was a shift around 1900. A push to say "the Government is responsible for everything". Free stuff, couched in terms of Charity. And, not long after that, the Frankfurt School started pushing things along. But, at least, back then, the Government knew it couldn't ban something without a Constitutional Amendment. Now, they just ban things willy nilly, with a simple Federal Law or even bureaucratic fiat.
But, yes, the undermining of Sexual Morality has been a key to destroying civilizations since forever.
The evidence is that in the past a class has risen to a position of political dominance because of its great energy and that at the period of its rising, its sexual regulations have always been strict. It has retained its energy and dominated the society so long as its sexual regulations have demanded both pre-nuptial and post-nuptial continence. … I know of no exceptions to these rules.
-J.D. Unwin
This feels a bit cart/horse. Political dominance has also come to people who pushed open, low restriction sexuality. It is just unsustainable. Any society which is sustainable will maintain strict sexuality. While I cant cite anything specific, I bet it has been studied thoroughly and It seems to me that societies start with strong moral code. As they become successful, the moral code degrades, probably due to the successful society being able to sustain people when they fall short of the code long enough for them to gain societal power. They advocate for a lessening of the restrictions of morality. Eventually, the society collapses under the weight of its immorality.
@@vanmoody Rome was destroyed by too much government. Read ==> The Collapse of Complex Societies by Joseph Tainter - pdf . Free Online.The good stuff starts in Chapter 4.
I arrived here via Heather Mac Donald and Abigail Schirer. I would have not imagined myself interested in a listen to someone like Mary Eberstadt. I haven't pondered, but rational conclusions seem obvious.
Modern birth control came at the worst possible time since sexual mores were already changing with urbanization and weakened extended families. I think if modern birth control had been discovered in the 19th century and introduced as something to save women's lives and help the poor avoid too many children, the strong moral values of the time would not have led to the sexual revolution. Unfortunately, Congress made birth control illegal at the time when moral standards were rigorous. Introducing family planning at the height of Victorian values (i.e. condoms) would have reinforced family stability, decreased urbanization and generally been a stabilizing influence in society. Unfortunately, birth control became widely available at the worst possible time, both morally and sociologically.
Barbara Brooks but the birth control is forbidden in all the religions
The Bible does not forbid birth control. The man who was struck dead for using withdrawal had deceived his brother's widow that he was going to carry on the family line. The New Testament tells us that a man who does not support his household is worse than an infidel and has denied the faith. It also says that couples are not to deny each other sex unless they take a break from sex for a special prayer time. What does that mean? Well, couples would have to limit their family size to afford to support the children. God's command was to FILL the earth--it's full. Also, if women did not use birth control, we would see women die in childbirth and have horrendous complications from too much childbirth. Family planning is usually a good thing in marriage.
From what I can find most churches that condemn birth control do it based on "be fruitful and multiply" and the biology of people with sex designed for reproduction. However, the bible itself does not condemn those who would control reproduction and in no place except one is failure to reproduce condemned or punished.
It would seem while the Bible and most other faiths encourage the propagation of the group, few condemn limitations based on ability to pay or otherwise support and care for their progeny.
If a worker is a voluntary worker at an agreed upon wage, there is no exploitation. As far as disability with age, workman's comp recognizes the employers responsibility for injury and disability on the job. Thus safe working conditions are a benefit to the employer as well as the employee.
I might also mention disability with age is a natural condition of a long life as the body wears out. And that is a personal responsibility of the individual to prepare and a social responsibility of the FAMILY to care for the young and elderly.
As far as care of servants, as employees would have been considered in the past. The Bible gives a responsibility for care (Leviticus 25:43}. Even in the worst times of US slavery the law required the care by the master for old slaves. They could not be legally abandoned.
Barbara Brooks
- "God's command was to FILL the earth--it's full." It's full?Who knew!?! Wow! You sure are smart!
her answer about secilarism and religion being just two competing faith systems is very good. but at the same time so obvious. I hate when it is presented like secularism is some sort of meta ground where other faiths have to adjust themselves.
She even brought it up herself at about 31:00, I don't know why she keep saying "no one could have foreseen it"
Joseph Mantle: Why? Because the people pushing this were Marxists and social progressives. From their warm, fuzzy cultural bubble, these people NEVER foresee the terrible consequences of their utopian "solutions".
I know that is why they did it. Why is this woman saying it? I just noticed the "Post-Protestant Ethic" part of the video title. Maybe it is because she is willfully ignoring it because of the Catholic aspect.
"Conspired" is the wrong word. The fact is Protestants opposed the Catholic Church from the very beginning. But there was no grand conspiracy... they were all very open about it.
Never the less, this woman is a scholar who should have been able to say "there was at least one quarter where all the effects of this were predicted." In fact, I would love if she had done research and named any other prominent persons of the day who also did so. Surely the Pope and solid Catholics couldn't have been the only people saying these things! After all, simple Reason alone would have predicted most of these effects!
I ascribe it more to Leftism, which isn't "Jewish". Many Socialists are Jews, but we can see that, in any leftist country, they are inevitably persecuted. Nothing the Marxists like more than pitting one group against another.
The back to the topic at hand, everyone likes Sex, and would like to do it without limit or responsibility. So anyone who simply looks ahead and says "this is going to lead to disaster" will be squelched.
None of which really explains why author Mary Eberstadt would continuously say "no one could see this coming", then mention that at least one world leader did see it coming.
Most Jews, like most everyone else, don't consider it enough to know what they are. Most Socialist countries tend to round up Jews. And most people who go about blaming "the Jews" are just as leftist when you scratch just below the surface.
In 1969, at age 19, I looked at the plague of divorce that was taking place, and which has continued unabated since then, and swore off marriage or having children.
Now, at age 73, that has proven to be my best decision ever.
Divorce has certainly been a disaster for children.
I certainly did not want to be ground up in the divorce-child custody-child support machine as a man.
So who DOES it benefit? I understand that 80% of divorce actions are filed by women these days. Does that give us a clue?
Most women filing for divorce is because of infidelity. That is the problem. If you can be a man of honor and maintain fidelity, you probably won't be divorced by a woman unless there is abuse.
But WHY do they divorce? Many surveys cite ''married too young'', and fights over money.
Wow...I have been watching the world with the 1960's in mind. In 1970, our family visited my mother's home town of Byron, Georgia. Byron is a nice small town.
In 1970, they had just had a Southern version of Woodstock...the Rock Festival at Byron. I remember the picture in the paper of a guy and a girl...holding hands...walking down a railroad track...from behind...not a stitch of clothing on. I thought, what if you got caught up in it and Really BOUGHT INTO IT? No wonder things have changed.
I have worked with two people who grew up in Central Georgia. When asked if they were at the Rock Festival at Byron, I got two answers:
..."No! My parents wouldn't let me go to something like that!"
...and the other answer, with a grin, "We went to look at the girls!"
@ Mitchell Fuller.
The 60's of sex drugs and rock and roll.
Turned into the 80s of AIDS drugs and birth control
@@brucehutch5419 That rhymes nicely! Sadly, you are right...
@@michaelfuller2153 . I thought that up decades ago in the late 80s
Wow..what a SHOCK
I Was born in 1958, and never seen anything like it
Super cool lecture Mary, you can now blow your nose.
WOW! A great privilege to hear!
Teachers at my high school started throwing baby showers for some of the pregnant girls, especially the black girls. Councilors helped them navigate getting welfare money, free apartments, formula, formula, diapers.
Some people will have babies to bum off the benefit system. What good does that do?
Can't feed 'em don't breed 'em should be a law.
Commitment by a woman is very rare. They are always looking for the next better deal. Once marriage for life goes away that "looking" goes into overdrive.
you could say the same for men. many men 50 year old men would trade their 50 year old menopausal wife for a 25 year old fertile babe lol
@@444-w8k Except that's not generally socially exceptable. Also how many 50 year old men can really get a great looking 25 year old?
@@joerapo how many 40 plus year old women could get with a high value man? not many. And my point wasnt that they could, it was that they would
Both sexes trade up. Many men leave their wives who supported them when they were building careers and then left her for a yonger woman. It is no wonder my Mother encouraged me to obtain skills that would be valuable in the marketplace.
That's been my experience and I was a fit strong man that took care of everything and it still wasn't good enough. No way should any man commit to any of them .
I think her argument that the Pill led to abortion is flawed. When Roe v. Wade was decided, many women felt like they no longer needed the Pill or other forms of contraception because they could just get an abortion if they became pregnant. Without abortion being legalized it's possible more women would have used contraceptives.
I don’t know any women in my entire life that have used abortion as a general mode of contraception. It has always been an in case of emergency type of use.
@@ashleynicole9423 Abortion effectively IS used as a form of contraception. The vast majority of abortions are elective (i.e. the baby is unwanted, either by the mother or people around her.) I'm not against contraceptives that prevent pregnancy, but once a woman is pregnant she should not be allowed to kill that child unless it is an absolute medical necessity (either because the pregnancy poses a direct physical danger to her life or the fetus is severely deformed to the point that it has no chance of survival.)
While we're on the subject, allow me to add that I've always been skeptical of the idea that the Pill caused the Sexual Revolution. I think the Sexual Revolution had more to do with the general counterculture, and especially the antiwar movement. The hippies wanted to "stick it" to the establishment in any way they can, and one of the easiest ways to do that was to flout the sexual conventions of the day. Hence things like the Summer of Love and the slogan, "Make love, not war."
That said, I agree with the gist of her argument. The Sexual Revolution, whatever its causes, has been tremendously damaging to society in more ways than one.
Contraception trumps abortion. Anyone having sexual relations inside or outside of marriage without a condom is suicidal these days!
@@ashleynicole9423 I know some.
It was never the intention of such judgements as Rowe and Wade nor the recommendation of the use of Birth Control but to take private life in sexual matters out of the competence of criminal law, because the personal circumstances must be allowed to take steps appropriate to those. The erotic and sexual commercialisation might explain the mores now but the issue that should concentrate minds that sex, in or out of marriage should be predicated on Love and accept accept responsibility for the consequences. I accept that the sociological consequences of sexual revolution have been adverse. I think one should separate law from religion. I think one should recognise that many social attitudes have been transformed by technology. Many other developments have contributed to the changes that are remarked and rejected;
The bicycle, the typewriter, the war, that required women to change their rôles and were accordingly liberated from domestic tyranny and boredom. I propose Benedict's law namely that every technology has commensurately equal benefits and dysbenefits but they manifest themselves at different levels of organisation both temporally and spatially.
Do not confuse law and theology and morals.
Around Time Stamp 41:00, she states that young people come to Protestant and Catholic Churches looking for Orthodoxy. Why look there when you can find Orthodoxy in the Orthodox Church???
Marriage is Gods most holy institution which He lloves and will never work as He intended without following His counsel found in the Bible!!!
Brother is confused or delusional your cowardly christian gawd is not about love that advertising,the bible explains how awful your god is
"Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come. " First Corinthians 10:11
I had a freind who confided with me that his girlfriends abortion broke his heart. he was not included in the decision and had taken a high paying job in the Australian desert to be able to support her.
Once again, rejecting God's word brings chaos and misery
52:43 “shop for people” and “if this one doesn’t work out” arguments only are valid when polygamy or polyamorous relationships are not an option. 7 billion people in the world, chances are that there are more people out there you’re NOT compatible with than people you’re compatible with.
Sometimes it takes time for people to truly know.
To stay with someone who’s just not healthy for you just because you’re married or have had sex or children with is a sure way to make your life incredibly more difficult and possibly even toxic.
"Stay together for the children" is the worst thing for children if the couple can't stop fighting. Divorce sucks, nonstop fighting parents suck even harder.
@@skylinefever true
I was always looked down upon and rejected by girls and women when I was a teenager and then a young man. I am nearing sixty years old and haven't dated. I have been saving my money and reducing my debts. I own my own home and REFUSE to date and have NO DESIRE whatsoever to date or marry any woman. I don't want the baggage and drama. I had to work very very hard to earn my education and don't want to risk of losing what I have worked very very hard for. WHY take a chance of losing my life's hard work by going to divorce court. NO THANKS!!!! NO WAY!!!!
I have just accepted the fact that I WILL NEVER EVER DATE OR GET MARRIED!!! I AM GOING MY OWN WAY!!!!
I have known many men my age and younger who have been through divorce court and lost a lot of their hard earned wealth along with going through the perils of child support and child custody matters.
I have also known several men and women who have suffered sexually transmitted diseases ( STDs) as well as deal with the effects of unplanned pregnancy issues.So, I guess that I am very very fortunate. I don't have much debt and I have put back, saved, and invested my money throughout the years. I do have some sense of financial security.
By the way, I don't have any sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), nor do I have any children out of wedlock. I guess that GOD has spared me from great pain and agony.
My advice to everyone is to avoid marriage and dating all together and make sure to take care of yourselves ( because no one else will) and avoid the drama and chaos of pursuing relationships.
So the Sexually Revolution actually “liberated” and empowered men… never thought about it that way
@ Brandon washere . The men get unliberated when the divorce court steps in. Men Loose their children change from wealthy or well-off to poor, both sides can lose their home.
Of course, it removed the need to get married even if the girlfriend got pregnant.
8:48 one reason is because contraception is taboo among religious groups especially Catholics and sex education is considers taboo as well
PJ ~ What she is saying here is that.....besides "the pill/contraception" becoming available in 1963, WHY the unprecedented rise in both pregnancy & abortion outside of marriage? Yes, other than the 'rhythm-method" all contraception is banned by "the Church", even today, as is abortion & sex outside of marriage. Either way, do I believe she's incorrect w/the date of 1963, overall, b/c several States had "anti-contraception laws on the books & in Connecticut the State's original Constitution banned use of all "contraception". I only have irrefutable info for CT & have read it many times, that we were chosen "specifically" b/c it was in the State's original Constitution along w/being the "most strongly worded". Not to mention.....it was actually a married couple (for lack of a better word) used to eventually propel this issue to the SCOTUS!! The case was appealed to "the Supremes" & overturned in 1965, *"Grizwald v Connecticut"* BUT, I digress.....
Her point stands!! If contraception is "taboo" would not that include abortion? Also, sex-ed is widely taught by Catholic parents in the home today, as it was in the 60 & 70's. Those days what was "taught in the schools" was only the 'biological' info, most of the Q&A was answered w/ "ask your parents" ~ LOLOL ~ THAT was 1973 (5th grade) for me!! Same year as Roe, BTW.
@@rosefincher7631 the Catholic Church teaches that abstinence is the best form of birth control - tell that to the Virgin Mary
In the world I inhabit, it has been difficult for decades to find women who want to be women. They want to be thought of as persons who happen to be female. They become annoyed if you fail to regard them as such, and also if you don't. The result is unappealing in several ways.
I agree with this lady 100%
As the mere fact that EVERY abortion is the result of an unwanted pregnancy and that every unwanted pregnancy involves a male’s participation, men do not only have the right but the obligation to stand up and be vocal about this issue!
Mary Eberstadt is not a modern feminist, but she is an extreme feminist.
Her gynocentric analysis fails to hold women accountable for their bad behavior and choices. Only men are to blame. Only men are empowered. While she makes some good points, she completely lacks a balanced perspective. She sees the world ONLY from the point of view of the female victim. Any casual observer can see that Mary Eberstadt is blind to women's culpability in their own circumstances and in many of today's social problems.
Here are some inconvenient facts for Eberstadt to consider:
- 100% of abortions are the exclusive decision of mothers. Fathers don't even have the legal right to know that their offspring ever existed.
- 80% of divorces are initiated by women, not men, often for selfish and capricious reasons. Thank you No-Fault Divorce.
- In 90% of divorces, Women's Court (misnamed Family Court) awards women with child custody, property, and an indentured servant (the father pays more than half his future income to the woman who stole his children and destroyed his family).
- A large number of women choose to have babies out of wedlock. Are there any studies to quantify this number?
- Women find 80% of men unattractive. Further, women expect marriageable men to have all of the so-called four sixes. If you don't know what that means, look it up. Women are beyond unrealistic. They cross the line into delusion.
- Large numbers of women birth multiple babies from different fathers. Why isn't the actual percentage well-known? Because our gynocentric culture protects women from their bad choices.
- Single mothers are the worst parents. They raise more criminals, drug addicts, school dropouts, pregnant teens, etc. This is typically framed as a problem of Deadbeat Dads. Yet the mothers prevent fathers from spending time with their children. His only purpose for existing is to pay mothers to finance their harmful bad choices.
- Single fathers rarely get custody of the children, but they raise well-adjusted children on par with children raised by both their father and mother. So why does Women's Court continue to overwhelmingly give child custody to single mothers? Why isn't the default position to give fathers child custody? Because Women's Court is a feminist institution to panders to women's wishes. The Court's decisions are rarely in the best interest of the children or the family. The father's welfare is not even on the table.
I could go on, but my point is made. Women are the root cause of many of today's social problems. For the most part, women are not victims. Women create victims.
The problem for religious women.
They are interested in the top 20% of men (like most women) and that top 20% have no need to respect them in order to fulfill their sexual desires because they are in high demand.
If these women want to find a man they need to look to men that are good men, not just men over 6' tall, athletic & high income.
Where have all the Godly Chads gone?
Simple, they had no incentive, and hellfire and brimstone "Purity culture" sermons didn't affect them.
@@skylinefever It's hard to stay Godly when women are throwing their VJJ at you every day. It can be done but it takes a really Godly Chad.
When a woman marries for money she will later regret not marrying for love. You don’t have to be “high income” to be a good provider. Homes in the south cost much less than in the big cities. Stay at home moms tend to start businesses at home and go back to work when children are school age. It’s really not that hard. Just take’s commitment
For years I have asserted the behavior of women envisioned by feminist aligned with that of "frat boys" would devise at 2AM Sunday after not "scoring" on their date..
It's really the fault of us boomers for our failure to reject the failures of neoliberalism
She hits on something important with laser focus thats easy to digest. Personally for my self by observing in general those who choose to be promiscuous. They have that right In mutual consent I respect despite my beliefs. The immediate gratification in pleasure for me I see. Is really a liability with long term effects in many ways. It not something I would invest in besides the market is flooded.
36:35 "people are wired to believe something". I would agree. However, we have become a culture that believes people aren't wired. (Essentially there's no such thing as human nature, biologically speaking.) This makes it easy to say I can be born in the wrong body. Who and/or what then is this "I"? Clearly not a part of the material universe - after all, it manipulates/supercedes the material universe. Only religions have ever spoken this way.
I was told all my life about having some God shaped hole, but God never filled it no matter what I tried.
@@skylinefever Well God filled it for me 🥰
The birth control pill and the technology enabling safe abortion is not going away. What has driven the end of the traditional family is capitalism itself. Production for the needs of human life is carried out socially by farmers and industrial workers. The farmer is increasingly driven off the land by new technology and the workers is paid a wage that is just enough to sustain himself for work the following pay period. For when the bosses look at their accounting books they ask why should i pay for older workers with families when I can hire a single man who won't get pregnant. Why pay for a new generation when I can entice the young in poor countries to come and fill my jobs. Why pay taxes for healthcare when I can buy all I need. Why pay for educating Dovtor's and Engineers when I can get other countries to train them. This is the thinking of America's grredy ruling class of bosses and bankers. They pay these intelectuals to pretend the don't see any of this and that it is some how connected to a moral decline and not the system of prorfit maximization and greed above all else.
The corporate oligarchs want to get richer and if it means making the poor get poorer, it is considered an acceptable trade.
People coming together to demand better wages? Well, time to start a "Borders are racism" campaign and bust that union. Republicans went along with it by saying "Look at the Christian influence in those countries." Sorry, but that won't change the law of supply and demand.
@@skylinefever What is needed is solidarity among all workers not more immigration police. No to deportations a jobs for all program building things working people need.
What about the change in women eg prostitution of women and men treating women as prostitutes or sex dolls . No human contact or bonding .
Human contact would be there if men have any reason to commit. Sexual revolution took away all these reasons.
prostitution is really old
Mariage is virtualy ritual prostitution.
People have been paying sex workers for ages, and saying it was sometimes illegal didn't mean it was rare. It was the one form of sex without commitment or reproduction that men had. Also, it did a great job of keeping non-select men from doing terrible things, just ask holy man St. Thomas Aquinas.
18:30 lots of men are not settling down, Peter Pan syndrome, and failure to launch
I assume the Janet Yellen whose work is cited is she who spent decades at the Federal Reserve.
What year did easy divorce start? I seem to recall that at one time Reno, Nevada was the only place to go. But that was in the ‘50s.
I'm not sure exactly when it started. However, president Reagan mad it much worse in the 1980s, by signing a no fault divorce bill into law. "Family values" Republicans will do anything to forget about that and call Reagan the greatest president ever.
@@skylinefever When Reagan was a Cali Democrat, he loosened abortion restrictions. I think it was Tom Hank's parents divorce case that instituted ''no fault'' divorce in that state.
Brilliant ‼️
You also do realize that sex for money has been around centuries before playboy. Furthermore everyone who is associated with playboy did so voluntarily. And finally I can guarantee you and everyone of those women got paid much much more than any man could ever imagine. Oh yes the women had a very very good
Centuries before playboy sex for money was not mainstream…It was looked down upon done in the shadows. See the difference?
Taylor you should come up with new better tasting meds and safer meds as well with minimum to no side effects. Just throwing that out there. You said you're a biochemist or studying it.
By the way, someone made reference to Bob Jones University's old policy on inter-racial relationships during the Questions & Answers. The questioner mischaracterized the policy as the college not recognizing inter-racial marriages as legitimate. While the News Media might have led the questioner to this inaccuracy in their sloppy reporting with animus behind it, BJU never refused to honor inter-racial marriages. I know this for a fact since I was a student there during the period before Stephen Jones removed the ban on inter-racial dating while people were students at BJU. I sat next to a couple who were of different races in a psychology class. The young man was of European descent and his wife was of East Asian descent. The policy was never to refuse to recognize inter-racial marriages, but to prevent students from dating other students of another race while being students at BJU. So, if a couple met off campus or prior to being a student at BJU and married, then there was no problem when they returned to campus the following semester or if they met years before applying to enroll as a student at BJU.
The policy was instituted in the 1950's when the mother of a Chinese student objected to her daughter dating a boy of European descent. The mother threatened to pull her daughter out of the college. She did not want her daughter marrying someone who was not Chinese. Most people then, and really now, don't want their children marrying outside of their race. The policy was put into place to make parents feel their child was being protected while at BJU.
The squeamishness on BJU's part about inter-racial marriage was never that such marriages were immoral as in the case of same-sex marriage. The problem was not only with parents objecting to their child marrying outside of their own race, but also the problem arising if a lot of people married outside of their race then the separation of the races would break down and along with them the separateness of the nations and civilizations leading to the Globalism that we are witnessing now. Why is that bad from a theological perspective? Because breaking down national barriers will lead to a one-world economy and society that will eventually lead to a one-world government. Why is that bad? Because the Anti-Christ will eventually head it. The last time humanity was untied was at the Tower of Babel when people united behind the first anti-Christ, Nimod. This is when God separated people into various language groupings that eventually led to the different races, ethnicities, and polities. Given that people have a fallen nature, it is best to keep people divided. When they are re-united, people around the world will once again be set against God.
As a man, I feel it when I meet or glance at one of the many wounded woman who have i guess been the victims of male predation, the look of fear shows repulsivness that is mine because I am a man.
One consequence of the legalization of abortion is the wide spread rejection by men of the role of provider and protect-"Had 2, wanted none" is their mantra. And the widespread belief among men is that the duty of supporting and raising ch/ildren belongs solely to the mother.
So much nonsense she says! The sexual revolution has benefited men and not women? How about family court unfairly benefiting women in matters of alimony, child custody. This is a huge issue and huge injustice. How about women's ability to put a man in jail with only a phone call to police and with no evidence of wrongdoing.? Or having gotten rid of debtors prisons a hundred years ago brought them back only for men who owe family court. Even a wrongful accusation once proven to be wrong rarely results in action against the woman.
23:39 This is not true. Men are NOT abusing women in unrelenting fashion etc.
The truth is that women have had an unrelenting gain in employment from laws favoring them in the workplace as well as education, through preferential treatment. Women are getting the world THEY wanted, at the expensive of men. Men can't even have conferences to talk about the rights of men in most universities.
Brilliant answer, great insight about what Gates foundation are doing in poor countries! 38:03
The problem she did not address is online gaming. Online Gaming is an addiction keeping men from finding a wife.
Personally, I prefer writing comments on the internet.
If it wasn't for online gaming, men would spend time doing something else besides finding a wife. XBOX live could evaporate overnight, and you still wouldn't see men rush to seek marriage. Men have seen way too many good men get destroyed by marriage.
Men will just have another hobby. Golfing, hunting, fishing, and riding loud motorcycles are popular among men who dropped out of seeking a wife.
Gaming can also be calling obesity with the 14-30 year old males.
Also, gym isn't a substitute for Dance places
If they bring back couples dancing, and women in skirts, it could change into a more romantic vibe
Also, fast dancing can be more of a workout than gym
Arthur Murray's is still around
Mary Eberstadt I did a deep dive down the Wikipedia Rabbit Hole of yours and your relatives life and history. Your family and people you and members of your family have Associated and worked with is astounding. Generations of writers and otherwise accomplished people.
I'd like to add after watching the Q & A, that Ms, Eberstadt is about as clueless as 1970's and '80's abstinence leaders as to how to solve this problem. Several of the questioners asked point blank where/how do young women find men. Her answer was for young women to "stop looking down at your phones." Seriously?
Young women cannot find good men because the good ones are about as scarce as a double-yolked egg. I can tell you right now that they are NOT in church. If you are a church-goer, take a look at your own congregation and see who outnumbers whom. Visit other congregations and note the same. If you say, well there are plenty of men in my church, take another look around. Are these men by themselves or are they partnered? Chances are very good that they are there with their spouses and kids. You see, church only becomes attractive once you have settled down and have kids. If you are single, naa. Not for you.
And even if singles ARE going to church, even the most conservative ones, there is no guarantee that they haven't bought into the sexual revolution to some degree. Just as the majority of American Catholics have rejected Humanae Vitae and quietly use contraception, the same goes for saving sex for marriage among Christians in general. I am willing to bet that there are students at Hillsdale College, perhaps even in that audience, who say yes yes to her message but are still privately having sex outside of marriage. It may not be as promiscuous as hookup culture, but they are sexually active nonetheless.
Yes, the churches probably should be doing more to bring young single people together but at this stage of the game it is a lot like locking the barn door after the horse has gotten out. Just as employers are now finding out that if there are no applicants you cannot magically wave a wand and create them out of nothing, the church cannot create what is not there in the first place. Men overwhelmingly do not accept the idea of saving sex for marriage. This is a fact and it does not help that the majority of abstinence programs are aimed at young women, thus setting them up for disappointment because they are encouraged to seek out something that does not exist. Yes, I am being blunt. Furthermore, as "Better Bachelor" has pointed out in his RUclips channel, when it comes to the dating pool, women only have the "advantage" during their 20's. Once they get beyond that, the "advantage" shifts to the older guys who have an seemingly endless pool of free-and-easy 20-somethings and who are not interested in women their age. So this is also driving the rise in women not being able to marry. The lesson for women seems to be: delay marriage too long, for whatever reason, and you will end up never getting married.
My take on all this is that BOTH sides have lied to young women and young men, all with good intentions, of course. Perhaps there are signs of hope on the horizon, but I do not see it. The sexual revolutionaries have won, and as long as people who don't want to buy into it are penalized in the dating/marriage market, they will continue to win.
My impression is that some women have unrealistic expectations. They do not want to marry the first man who asks them, but rather a man who is charismatic and sweeps them off their feet. And because such men are rare, eventually fussy women do not get married to any man. Ii would guess that abortions increase because they are available. People may think they can risk an unwanted pregnancy because they can resort to abortion as an out. If they were afraid of unwanted pregnancy with no resort to abortion, perhaps they would be more careful. They might use two or three methods of birth control simultaneously in order to reduce the chance of pregnancy to the minimum, if there were no possibility of abortion. And as well, perhaps many people are willing to adopt children who are not their biological children and this possibility might be greater and provide a way to avoid raising the product of unintentional pregnancies. Or am I mistaken?
No, James....You are NOT wrong!! IMHO, perhaps these girls & their 'unrealistic exceptions' should wait for the guy who is *"charismatic and sweeps them off their feet"* before they go giving themselves away? I wonder.....in the age of these 4th or 5th? wave of "feminists".....do they even think about what kinda 'woman' those exceptional men might want??
~ Just FTR: I'll be 60 in a few months, never did see any "need for feminism" ~ as my Mother's generation had fought (&won) that fight, lolol. Sooooo, my point? The whole thing was to #1 ~ *Double the tax-base by getting the women out of the home* which in turn, allowed for breaking up "the nuclear family" & putting the education of their children into the State's control!!
I found one woman that I might have married. Alas --- she had no interest in me. Circa 1982, when she was thirty years of age, she told me that her plan, her PLAN, was to marry Bill Gates, a man she had never met.
When 'old Bill did get married, I did the arithmetic: the woman who wanted to marry him was three years older than Gates. The woman Gates married was thirteen years younger than he was.
This woman turned seventy in September, never married and never had children.
However, Bill Gates was divorced recently---- perhaps she will make another run at him!
And she was a smart, management level corporate employee.
@@SeattlePioneer Some people plan things in terms of cost and benefit. Supposedly Nancy Reagan, before she married Ronald, had made a list of men in Hollywood that she thought might be good matches for her. Apparently Ronald was at the top of the list, or he was the one who responded positively. But they did seem to be a good pair, so far as I know. I have only been able to find one woman who turned me down in my 20s. She told me she never married. though she must be over 70 now. I think she has an adversarial attitude to the world,and that includes men. She world rather take potshots at a man than love him. Probably most such women end upnever marrying or perhaps marrying and divorcing several times. Partners of either sex, or should I say all sexes, cannot have non-negotiable demands that the other could never accept. There has to be mutual conpromise and concessions to each other. In one of the RUclips videos the author reported he had chatted with an executive woman who was around 40 and asked her, if she wanted children. She said yes, she loved children, she just did not like men. With such an attitude it would seem a happy marriage might be difficult.
Adoption isn't all that effective, some call it a waiting list for an undamaged white baby.
She keeps saying "something they could not have foreseen". Wasn't this all in Humanae Vitae?
All of the "human rights" movements have been about freedoms minus responsibility. I've never seen nor heard of anyone marching or lobbying for responsibilities. Feminism wanted equal rights without equal duties & responsibilities, and that's all it has ever wanted or will ever want. None of the "movements" were ever about "equality" at all, but just "gimme" movements. Gimme more stuff at someone else's expense, is at the bottom of all the so-called "rights" issues. And the white male seems to be the only 'interest group' that never had a movement, because it was thought that every white male rules the world.....somehow....has everything given and done for him, can do anything he pleases, and has no responsibilities - until it's time to pay up his "fair share" on behalf of everyone else of course.
They could foresee it alright, but preferred to appear not to, because they knew it wasn't about facing up to anything, but only about using the law to oppress others while claiming to be the victims. Now, in spite of all the "progress" of the human rights BS, the new generation of special interest groups feels more oppressed than ever, as if all the 'progress' had actually gone the opposite direction. That's the part nobody foresaw - that being made more 'equal' would have the opposite effect and just make them feel all the more oppressed.
And again, it's because it was never about equality, but only a ploy to get free goodies. And it worked so well for it's true purpose, that being a victim is all the rage now, and it's why women and other oppressed groups are screaming louder than ever before.
They read it. They were all atwitter before hand, hoping the Pope would say "sure, do what ever you want!" When it didn't say what they wanted, and they couldn't find a flaw, they suppressed it. Even the Bishops.
Humanae Vitae is freely offered on line. It's not being suppressed. It may not be appreciated or encouraged as it should be by Bishops, clergy etc. but it is offered and easily available. It's brilliantly written and a very worthwhile read.
It certainly is well written. But get a Priest speaking about it in many diocese, and they will shut him down. The Winnipeg Statement was nothing but trying to suppress it.
In fact, it may have been foreseen when Anthony Comstock worked hard to suppress knowledge birth control through the Comstock acts of the 1800s.
Hmmmm....there's a third element (aside from empowering women's choices and the economics of the sexual revolution) - that of the family law legal environment in which relationships, children and marriage exist and operate. In western society and in North America, the legal regime has done a great deal to redress historic power and economic imbalances...but for men the legal consequences of the system as it currently exists represents yet another reality that they factor into choices about relationship, child and marriage choices.
Conservatives hate mentioning that, even though they ought to be aware that incentives drive behavior, and the financial incentives of marriage and children aren't there.
Divorce is the problem. Why men think they can run around while they have children to raise and support is the issue here.
Perhaps, but there are a lot of fake statistics flying around, especially in RP videos. Only 11% of women get alimony and most custody arrangements are 50/50. It may be that women file for most of the divorces, but the reasons why are never given.
Good men are sick of the embarrassment and rejection and ridicule from the pretty little fems.
1. We are not. We don't care about them. 2. We don't need a spokesperson, thank you.
She should be on Honey Badger Radio.
Parents will need to get involved in match making for their children.
This is a largely persuasive summary of the period spanning 1960-2010, but no young people today will recognize the world she describes. Men, not women, face a disastrous sexual, dating, and marriage market. They have been professionally displaced, vilified, and abandoned to loneliness, addiction, and deaths of despair. The culture of harassment and predation she describes has been replaced by a world in which boys and men cannot even flirt with classmates or co-workers at risk of personal destruction.
So: good lecture here, and I want to read the book, but this characterization of the world left by the sexual revolution is likely to sound improbable or irrelevant to millennials and Gen Z.
Millennial here 👋 makes perfect sense. Have some hope 😉
To understand where we are, we have to review where we've been. The Left has created the memes that trash American Patriotism, family and fidelity.
I'm here to tell my future self that I have already watched this.
Hi, me! 😀
44:40 it couldn’t be more clear that the church has to be much more involved in this or it will only get worse. But I’m not sure the church wants to be involved? People wanting a Christian marriage seem to be very much on their own. Why? This speaker struggles with answers for change.
Gendercide was practiced in other societies when the method was just to leave them in the forest, let alone a nice, sterile procedure. This was all foreseeable!
Good point. I have been researching what gendercide will do to mainland China since I was 14. I'm now 37.
@@skylinefever I have not been researching China for nearly as long. And what I do see is largely from the YT channels ADV Podcast, and it's hosts' channels.
If you like, check them out and let me know where you think they are in error. But what they show me breaks my heart.
More than that, it breaks my heart for N Korea. When that regime collapses (which it must eventually), those people are going to have to relearn almost every aspect of being a "healthy" society.
@@Joemantler North Korea is indeed incredibly tragic. What Yeonmi Park has to say is fascinating.
What was that song referred to that expresses a man's anger with an abortion?
I think that a distinction needs to be made between men who are sexually successful and those who are not. There’s a huge difference. Woman on average only desire 15% of men. So those small fraction of men have been hugely empowered as she said. For vast majority of men though, the sexual revolution just means that there’s plenty of porn to watch while the continue to not get laid.
Mike Schnobrich, I don’t think that a celibate lifestyle looks illegitimate, but it does seem unpopular.
For some men, yes it’s quite plain that they measure their success as men through sexual conquest. And through that scope lots of men remain to be empowered by the sexual revolution.
The speaker is making a case that the sexual revolution empowered men and not women. So I’m bringing up a subtlety to show that maybe her reasoning is centered on the female perspective.
I think sexual access is a question that has more context for the individual than for society. I don’t think sexual access is something a society could or should promise. Nor should it impose. Hopefully that’s what the sexual revolution is trying to achieve
You are right, I was thinking the same thing. Women often get this wrong. I think it's because they can have sex on demand, they assume this is how it is for all men too.
Godly men have been hurt the most.
check also Judith Reisman, "Sexual Sabotage"
Men are sick of the ' goldmine' syndrome :"She got the ' goldmine,
I GOT THE
SHAFT " !"
We need a return to biblical standards if we profess to be Christians. Perhaps she could have ended her lecture on a strong positive note in the vein of the aforementioned standard. Colin John.
This still does not explain why one third of the senior class was pregnant. The pill does work. The girls weren't all stupid, were they? So, they must have been engaging in reckless sex that they did not engage in, before.
As women file for the vast majority of divorces, not staying in a marriage would seem to be a problem with them.
Trapping Men... Using Men ... Discarding Men. And the drama didnt end there.. it has shifted. Feminism introduced Marxism to america, and it has been downhill ever since. The drama of Marxism has spread like the Mental illness it is. Furthermore: the "revolution" is completely and wholly Women's fault. Feminism, and the Women's liberation movement too, are specifically named after the gender that caused 99% of the damage. It took 100s of years, but the "average" Men built Civilizations the likes of which the world has never seen: Outrageously great: Food production; Medical practices; Energy; Building; Businesses; Free-trade... But it took only a handful of years for Women to undermine it all.
One take away is that Women, unrestrained by common civil moral standards, have shown their true nature. Another is that those people do NOT deserve good and Honorable Men .. Marriage rates dropped from 97% to less than 1% today due to women undermining themselves as well as marriage laws. These beasts are not my problem. I can't fix them.. and I sure as shift will NOT support them or prop up this HORRID culture they built.
43:00 That young man would benefit from listening to Jordan Peterson PhD's lectures/books
Holy crap... the millennial dude speaks for, maybe, 30 seconds and says "LIKE" about 15 times. Do they not HEAR themselves?
abortion IS barbaric. Rather giving people the money to pay for their mistakes than having them learn to be responsible people is the new norm I guess. Especially late stage abortion should be banned till the end of time.
How to ignore hypergamy & serial monogamy for fun & profit!
She touched on the problem: men fear the courts!
Great info.