Unhappy Women and Natural Law
The London Daily Mail in its July 23rd edition carried an article under the following banner- Liberated, But Not Loving It. Written by a secular author, this article examines why the defining principles of the feminist manifesto has brought sadness instead of salvation (in a secular sense) to millions of women. The author, Amanda Patell reports on the research of Dr. Sylvia Pezzini who examined the effects the four key tenets of the feminist movement on women over a 23-year period from 1975 through 1998. The four tenets included the contraceptive pill, legalized abortion, liberal divorce laws, and enhanced women’s rights in the workplace. Pezzini’s research tracked the “life satisfaction” of 450,000 women over this period of time. Patell notes:
This work paints quite a different picture to the one of the high-flying, designer-clad Superwoman, deftly juggling a fabulous career with an exciting marriage and gorgeous children, that we all imagined we would become back in the 1970s.
Her observations about how British women are worse off included:
- - 14 year old girls on the pill, naïve promiscuity, rampant STDs
- - Britain having the highest teen pregnancy rate in Europe
- - Cohabitation growing more commonplace
- - Growing divorce rate
- - Difficulties in returning to the workplace after maternity leave
In faulting no-fault divorces, Pezzini notes:
Love aside, marriage is ultimately a contract between two people for mutually beneficial financial, child-rearing and support arrangements. The more that governments loosen the marriage contract by making divorce easier, the more commitment becomes a flexible term. In other words, quickie divorces only make for quickie marriages.
The article goes on to outline what the feminists lost sight of in their march on the barricades of prejudice. They failed to listen to mothers who wanted to stay at home. Instead they were treated as second-class citizens. As it turned out, they understood a fundamental truth that escaped the feminists- to create a home and wholesome family environment takes TIME. With devotion to career and self, there is no time left for the mainstays of life. The ruling elite of England are blamed for doing everything possible to drive women out of the home and into the workplace, placing political idealism over personal happiness. In calculating what they thought would make them happy- independence, career, status, and money, they overlooked the things that bring true contentment- relationships, family, and friendship.
The article is depressing in that all agree that they can’t turn back the clock and that the only hope is to try a “bit of balance”. Patell closes by saying, “We started off burning our bras. Maybe we should now burn our pride, admit our mistakes, and try to end this tinpot tyranny in which we are the greatest victims.” Lest you think this author is a masquerading conservative, listen to this observation about abortion- I would not deny any woman the right to abort a fetus under some circumstances- in particular where that child is likely to be denied the loving care that ought to be its birthright.
Now for a few observations from a worldview perspective. I happened to read this article as I was reading J Budziszewski’s What We Can’t Not Know. The profound implications of the moral law written on our heart were on my mind as I read the article. My conclusions will link this article and the tragedy it represents with two passages from this book.
Budziszewski does a marvelous job outlining the natural sources of moral knowledge. He calls them witnesses. The four witnesses are deep conscience, design (both external and personal), and natural consequences. In addressing our personal design he speaks of the complementarity factor that we as humans are designed with. Man and woman are much like the finger and the thumb in the way they are very different but complement each other in the task of grasping. Not only do we depend on each other, but also we depend on each other in a particular way. There is something missing in the man that must be provided by the woman and something in the woman that must be provided by the man. In every dimension-physical, emotional, and intellectual, they fit like hand in glove. Though many would argue with this point, the woman is better designed for nurturing the children and establishing a healthy home environment. The man, on the other hand, is better designed for role as provider and protector. It seems that the feminist movement, from the beginning, sought to discount this need for the genders to define and enhance each other.
I also believe we are seeing through this very secular article, the natural consequences (fourth witness) of pursuing a path opposes to God’s plan. Budziszewski says, “We see the principle that God is not mocked, that whatever he sows he reaps, woven into the very fabric of our nature. Some penalties show up within the lifetime of the individual; others may tarry for several generations. But the penalties for defiance are cumulative, and eventually they can no longer be ignored. The longer people persist in violating the natural law, the heavier the penalties for violation. Eventually even the dullest of us can put the clues together and solve the puzzle.”
The remorseful language of this article with an obvious longing of a return to past ideals also points out the working of deep conscience (first witness). This certainly isn’t just an issue with the British is it? We each have close family members who have made some bad choices and are now experiences these truths that can’t not be known. The prayer in each case is that the witnesses (of natural law) will drive them to see their need of a Savior and to listen to human witnesses like you and me.