Persons: The New Eunuchs

By

William D. Dannenmaier

During the sexual “revolution” of the 1970’s, George F. Gilder wrote an attack on the entire sexual freedom movement (Sexual Suicide, 1973). At the time I was a licensed psychologist teaching, among other things, mental health. I loved the book. In one passage Mr. Gilder addressed the then popular “Sex and Temperament in a Primitive Society” by Margaret Meade which discussed the sexual mores of three tribes. “Why,” Mr. Gilder asked, “would we want to copy the behaviors of three dying civilizations?”

In 1854 Henry David Thoreau wrote “The mass of men live lives of quiet desperation” in “Walden”. (1854)  In some respects, there has been little change since Thoreau wrote, but in other respects great change. The drive for equality before the law between men and women which culminated in the 1960’s became, and remains, a movement which proclaims the equality of identity of men and women and equality in sexual freedom as well as equality in the work place.  

I was fortunate to grow in a society in which the idea of married women working was frowned upon. Men and women were supposed to marry and have families. The men were to provide for the family through their employment – their working hours often stretching into ten and twelve hour days – and the women were to manage the family. As the men worked, even cooking and cleaning in the workplaces, the women cooked and cleaned in the homes, cared for the children in the absence of their husbands and frequently managed the household finances. In my youth, men, tired from days of labor and taking orders from others, which all did regardless of wealth, were pleased to come to a home managed by a wife which provided warmth: relaxation, comradeship and, often, entertainment even if it meant only laughing at children’s antics. 

The feminist revolt of the 1960s changed this. Feminists taught, and young women believed, that women should enter the workforce, that the workforce was a place of opportunity and freedom. Employment and independence became the goal for young women. But there is no independence in employment, nor is there lasting pleasure in dedicating one’s life to most jobs. Were Thoreau writing today, he would have to write “men and women live lives of quiet desperation.” Just as men must obey orders and do as they are told by employers, fearing unemployment through “force reductions” or the closing of firms, so do employed women.  Paid employment is not freedom.

Feminism has changed men’s lives as well as women’s lives. Men now come home to tired wives, if married, or “partners” if not married, who have also spent the day working. There is little pleasure or relaxation in returning home, better a visit at a bar or meeting at a restaurant. This is not only expensive, but it provides little opportunity for true relaxation and companionship.  If finances or interests do not permit these “entertainments” one can always drowse stupidly in front of a television watching equally irrelevant and stupid shows. All of these activities provide a poor groundwork for an enjoyable and stabile marriage – or life.

Thoreau also said, “That man is richest whose pleasures are the cheapest.” In a similar vein, a hundred years later, my pastor and friend Frank Chubb once gave a sermon on “The Ninety-Eight Necessities of Life.” He then proceeded to enumerate things for which we spend our lives working, but which we don’t need. We have become a society in love with possessions, prestige and money.  In order to obtain and support these luxuries, including four and five bedroom houses with multiple bathrooms for childless couples, both must work. In seeking these unnecessary social frills, too many women have abandoned their traditional role as the leader of the family.  

Consider the following. Who has the greatest freedom, the woman who arises at six or seven to get to a place of employment and spend eight hours doing as she is told before spending another hour returning home or the married woman who, with a responsible husband, stays home and cares for the children? Husband “responsibility” includes helping at home, even when that help simply consists of putting an arm around a wife’s shoulders when she has had more of children than she can stand, turning her away, and taking over the children for a few hours.

Remember that as soon as those children begin attending school the home-maker wife has seven or eight hours by herself, giving orders only to herself. Some such women play bridge or golf, some run small businesses from their home, some become active in community affairs. Not theirs, the behind a counter or a computer life, doing as some manager says. The sky is their limit. If you don’t believe that, read Sarah Palin’s history.

It is true that women with children who have lost their husbands must be able to make a living, but the truly independent woman is she with a responsible husband who supports the family. She controls the budget, allocating the spending. She not only dresses the children, she teaches them their moral values. She determines how she spends the hours of her day and of the days of her children. In effect, she controls the future of the United States to a greater extent than any working person or any politician. 

Women who make a living as “feminists” have discarded their femininity in return for money, prestige and power. In discarding their roles of wife and mother they have made themselves into modern eunuchs. They are persons, not women, and more and more young women are realizing the emptiness of such lives.